WWW Virtual Library
@ www.vlib.us
![[AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History -- US History documents]](http://www.vlib.us/amdocs/amdocs.gif)
AmDocs: Documents for the Study of American History
www.gif" hspace="5" width="25" height="25" border="0" alt="[logo: WWW-Virtual Library]"/>History Gateway at Kansas
Established by Lynn H. Nelson, 1993. First WWW-VL History site.
History of the expansion of America's West frontier
Pre-historic world in the Americas
Andrew Jackson in American History, 1830-1857
The Pre-Civil War Years in United States History, 1850-1860
American Civil War, 1861-1865, the bloodiest conflict in US history.
Selection of American museums, including statements on their cultural importance.
American sites of historical importance.
Reference sources for American history.
Selected national constitutions.
![[logo: WWW History]](http://www.vlib.us/history.gif)
Medieval History Lectures
Dr. Lynn H. Nelson, Professor Emeritus of Medieval History, University of Kansas
- Heinrich Brugsch My Life and My Travels
Rosetta Stone translator, German Egyptologist, Mein Leben und mein Wandern, 1894
![[logo: WWI Medical Front]](http://www.vlib.us/medical/masthd-m.gif)
The Medical Front WWI
All medical aspects & history, military and civilian, of World War One, the Great War
![[image: map of the World Wide Web, courtesy, opte.org]](http://www.vlib.us/opte.org.jpg)
WWI Resource Centre, contributions by World War One list members
![[logo:Kansas Heritage Group]](http://www.vlib.us/heritage.gif)
Old West Kansas
Pioneers, Cowtowns, Forts, Trails, Tribes
Selection of American art museums.
- Beats In Kansas: The Beat Generation In The Heartland
William S. Burroughs, Michael McClure, Bruce Conner, Charles Plymell, Allen Ginsberg, Beat Vortex
- William Burroughs Photo Gallery
William S. Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, Anne Waldman, Patti Smith, Dream Machine
Gazetteers & Atlases, American colonial history
American Indian Primary History Materials
- WWW-VL: Books On African-American Slavery
Primary US Black Slave History Materials
- HNSource
6 March 1993, first WWW history page; Lynn H. Nelson, author, archived
- Lynn Nelson's Chicago
Great Chicago institutions, sites and history from a true son of the city
Web ethics, computer ethical behavior, usage policies, resources, case studies
A history research library in electronic form
Includes LEED green preservation and policy statements, including selected state historic preservation offices
US History Archives | US History Databases | US History Electronic Texts | US History Federal Resources | US History Gateways | US History Journals
Development of agriculture in the United States
Wind farms and wind mills, with technical and historical background, current projects and future energy potential
Web Site Tools
Website design and tools for non-profitsSearch Engine Tips & Secrets
Best advice on search engines
Federal-State Partnerships for Museums
MPMA Museum Technology Committee
Mountian-Plains Museums Association AAM Small Museums & Technology Resources
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- I am telling no one what to think that is your agenda - I simply put out the case law and the words of the Constitution - I cherry picked nothing for I included all cases if you took the time to look. Your position, like PH is based on a false premise that the FF& R intended that the Federalist papers are the holy grail - how about the anti Federalist [bill of rights huh?] - The works of the entire 55 signers and the notes and papers of all of the Ratifiers are not important?The FF & R wrote the Constitution, signed same and ratified the document and all is contained within the four corner of the COMPACT. Their is not language that instructs one to look at certain papers if there is a difference of opinion about what the document means.Clearly they took extra time to write the Constitution in everyday common language of the times so that the common citizen could understand the exact terms of the Compact. Please show some evidence that meanings of the actual words of the Constitution can be adjusted - changed by the opinion of some later reader of the work. Do you believe the Founders - Framers and Ratifiers were not smart enough to put in a clause or Article to instruct which papers could be used to settle differences of time and meaning of words? Share with us a example if you would be so kind.IMO your behavior is not any different than the current Congress and Courts - you choose to inject some other meaning into the Constitution to give support to YOUR opinion. That is no different than Roberts pulling a new taxing authority to justify the ACA.The Constitution is clear and concise if you just use the meanings and definitions of the words and constructs of the time written. The FF & R said what they meant and meant what they said, so why do so many argue ti says this because John Jay said this or Hamilton said that - I can find works by Hamilton and Jefferson that argue with themselves so which one is the true one? Scholars are those that study, read and ponder the information in an attempt to find the meaning. some call themselves experts, Scholars in an attempt to prove them a expert or to give credence to false conclusions.Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotle
- Permalink Reply by on
- Reply by
- Permalink Reply by on
- JB, Mangus is Lock Piatt. Maybe that will help you find why he keeps pushing misinformation and distractions.
- Permalink Reply by
- WRONG, it is the lies of lawyers and judges we are fighting. It is the lawyers and judges who are fighting the Constitution and making up their own rule of law.
- Permalink Reply by
- I'm not talking about his qualifications, Mangus. I'm talking about his eligibility. We all know he is NOT QUALIFIED for anything other than bringing communism into our midst. And now we know that it is very likely that he is not even eligible to hold the office he sits in at the moment. I simply said he needs to be removed, and I advocate that this be done through our constitutional methods. Don't twist my words and imply that I am advocating anything else. Your condescension is both annoying and misplaced. Stop talking lawfare and start writing to your congressional representatives to begin the removal process.
- Permalink Reply by
- Every one of these cases are 14th Amendment cases, have NO BEARING AT ALL on Article II requirements for office or the definition of Natural Born Citizen. NONE AT ALL.So much for your so-called "scholars." They are quoting 14th IMMIGRATION cases concerning "citizen" as if they have anything at all to do with Natural Born Citizen.What you are proving is that we cannot trust lawyers, judges and so-called scholars.
- Permalink Reply by
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are being dishonest here Mr. Piatt.Of course you are trying to tell people what to think. You have worked very hard to do so here today, posting over and over again that we must trust the lawyers using 14th Amendment citizen cases to define Natural Born Citizen, when anyone with a third grade education can figure out for themselves that Immigration and Naturalization amendments and laws pertain only to IMMIGRANT citizens, not Natural Born Citizens.In fact, this is exactly why the Founders made such a distinction in Article II, reserving the highest offices in our land for Natural Born Citizens ONLY, void of any dual or divided loyalties. The history on the matter is 100% clear, as PH chronicles quite well in her column.PH and myself are trying to demonstrate FACT and TRUTH through recorded history and the point of origin for Natural Born Citizen.It is YOU who is telling everyone to ignore historic fact and think what you would prefer them to think, that they can only know truth by listening to the very people working around the clock to subvert the constitution, lawyers, judges and your so-called scholars.At least be honest with others here. YOU are trying to tell people what to think.But here's the bottom line, TRUTH is easily found in historical accounts of the facts. The lie requires experts, to help you sell the lie.
- Permalink Reply by
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- You have moved to entertaining now....Of course the works of PH, myself and every other author are our opinions, just like lawyers, judges and scholars have opinions, a point you made earlier.The question is - what are the foundations for those opinions?Contrary to popular belief, opinions and facts are not equal. But the best opinions are those based upon verifiable facts.Unlike opinions, facts have no inherent agenda.In your case, you repeatedly attempt to ignore or discredit the known historical facts behind the term Natural Born Citizen and the Article II use of the term, changing the topic or using personal insults as a means to distract from the main subject.PH presented a factual historic account of the term Natural Born Citizen. Each of those facts is easily verifiable by anyone searching for truth, she even provided links to make verification easy.The best fact source is first source, the point of origin. An opinion backed by verified first source facts is second only to being present at the point of origin yourself, which no one alive today can be.As I tell my kids, ignorance is the absence of facts easily remedied by access to facts. But stupidity is ignorance in the face of know facts. Stupidity is a chosen condition, usually motivated by a personal agenda not well served by truth.You have exposed yourself here today Mr. Piatt. Thank you!
- Permalink Reply by
- It has been said if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. You sir, in my opinion, do not want to know the truth, simply said you can't handle the truth. I am amazed the individuals like you that come on here and fail to see the message. Information provided by individuals much more informed and aware than you or I. It appears that all you want to do is poke holes in it. Rather you may consider keeping your lack of knowledge, experience and common sense in reserve until you assimilate the information others have taken the time to find for all of us. Sorry but you seem to me to be a graduate from one of our Government (Gubment) indoctrination centers. Like muddy water sir, your aperature is foggy. And please tell Buddha, I'm not angry, just disappointed that so few can recognize the truth when it is right there in plain few.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Reply byLock! Enough.........you've been proven by several to be wrong - accept it like a man and move on. If you want to continue pushing flat out wrong information proving you are pushing a destructive agenda you will be removed from PFA. In case you didn't notice - PFA is about working together productively not about folks sitting on here all day long causing a distraction and not pushing lies to confuse people.No more warnings.
- Permalink Reply by on
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Article v State convention and the 21st amendment -
- Permalink Reply by on
State ratifying conventions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaUnited States of America 
This article is part of the series:
Original text of the Constitution Preamble
Articles of the ConstitutionAmendments to the Constitution Subsequent AmendmentsUnratified AmendmentsFull text of the Constitution
Other countries · Law Portal
State ratifying conventions are one of the two methods established by Article V of the United States Constitution for ratifying proposed constitutional amendments. Ratifying conventions have only been used on one occasion, that being for the ratification of the Constitution's 21st Amendment in the year 1933. All other proposed constitutional amendments have been offered to the state legislatures for ratification.Contents
[hide][edit]Constitutional text
Article V reads in pertinent part (italics added):[edit]Use of the convention ratification option
Ratification of a proposed amendment has been done by state conventions only once: the 1933 ratification process of the 21st Amendment.[1] The 21st is also the only constitutional amendment that repealed another one, namely, the 18th Amendment, which had been ratified 14 years earlier.A state ratifying convention may not in any way change a proposed constitutional amendment, but must accept or reject the proposed amendment as written.[edit]Purpose
Because they incorporated the convention method of ratification into Article V as an alternate route to considering the pros and cons of a particular amendment, clearly, the framers of the Constitution wanted a means of sometimes bypassing the state legislatures in the ratification process.To some extent, the convention method of ratification loosely approximates a one-state, one-vote national referendum on a specific proposed Federal constitutional amendment, thus allowing the sentiments of registered voters to be somewhat more directly heard on highly sensitive issues. The theory is that the people of the conventions—which would typically be average citizens—would be less likely to bow to political pressure to accept or reject a given amendment than the state legislators would be. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a popular referendum is not a substitute for either the legislature or a ratifying convention—nor can a referendum approve of, or disapprove of, a state legislature's, or a convention's, decision on an amendment. (Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221, [1920]).New Mexico law provides that the members of its legislature would themselves be the delegates and form such a ratifying convention, if Congress were to again select that particular method of ratification. It is unclear whether this New Mexico state law violates the United States Constitution.[edit]Applicable State Laws
In a state's legislature, the ratification method is procedurally simple—propose a resolution, memorial, or proclamation of ratification and vote it up or down in each chamber of the state legislature. But using the convention method of ratification is a bit more complicated because it is, by necessity, separate and different from a state legislature. States have enacted laws to prepare for the possibility of Congress specifying the convention method of ratification.[edit]The Vermont Example
Citation: (17 VSC 1811 - 1825).Once Congress has proposed an amendment which Congress specifies is to be ratified by the convention method, Vermont's governor has 60 days to call for an election of delegates to that convention, and the setting of a date for those elections. Note that the Vermont code does not contemplate the calling of ratifying conventions from a national amendment convention, though the same procedures would likely be followed.Fourteen persons are elected to be members of the ratifying convention. They are elected at large, meaning that each voter would cast votes for fourteen people, with the top fourteen vote-getters being elected. The election must take place from three to twelve months after the governor's call. The convention must begin 20 to 30 days after the election. The convention itself is held in the Senate chamber in the state capital.The candidates who are seeking to become delegates are selected from a list of 28 possible Vermont citizens. All 28 candidates are selected by the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house. The persons selected must agree to be placed on the ballot - 14 of whom are opposed to ratification, 14 of whom are in favor. The ballots are to be plainly marked so that voters can decide based on the candidate's stand on the issue, or on name recognition. The state has 14 counties - each county is to have one "pro" and one "con" candidate. Voters can vote for all "For" or all "Against," or any combination thereof.The elected delegates meet on the appointed date, with the majority of those elected being a quorum. The Vermont code does not detail how the convention is to conduct its business aside from the fact that there will be a chairman and that the secretary of state will be the secretary of the convention, and those two persons will certify the results of the convention's vote. The convention might only last 15 minutes, or it could drag out for several days for debate. However long the convention takes, delegates are provided a stipend of $10.00 and reimbursement of actual expenses.[edit]The Florida Example
Citation: (9 FSC 107.01 - 107.11).In Florida, the convention is made up of 67 members. The governor has 45 days to call an election to be held from five to ten months after Congress proposes the constitutional amendment. Anyone can apply to be a member of the convention, with the state qualifications for the Florida House of Representatives used as an eligibility test. Candidates can officially declare that they are "for" or "against" the proposed amendment, or they may apply as unannounced. An application fee of $25 and a 500-name petition are also required. On the ballots, candidates are listed in three categories: "for", "against", and "undecided". There is also provision for write-in candidates. The vote is at-large, meaning that the 67 top vote-getters statewide win the 67 seats in the convention. The convention begins on the second Tuesday following the election. Delegates are not compensated per diem or for expenses.[edit]The New Mexico Example
Citation: (1-18-1 of the New Mexico Code).The procedure in New Mexico is vastly different. To start, the governor has only 10 days to call a convention—with each sitting member of the New Mexico Legislature automatically a delegate to the convention. Therefore, no special election is ever called for determining delegates. The convention is held in the chamber of the House of Representatives. New Mexico's code provides that, after three days, compensation to delegates will end.[edit]References
- ^ Everett S. Brown, Ratification of the Twenty First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: State Convention Records and Laws (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1938).
No comments:
Post a Comment