Declaration of Independence is Law, it is U.S. Code[W:118]

[Master PO]

But yet you are unable to provide the post number where you claim you answered my question. And yet you are unable to reproduce such information here for me to see.

Without either - one can only conclude you are not being honest and engaging in a falsehood.

I ask you again for at least the 10th time - if your claim about the Declaration being law is true, what application do you believe that has in the year 2015 to modern Americans.


Failure to provide a clear answer can only be taken by reasonable people as an inability for you to do so since you never presented an answer in the first place.

already answered

 

[Removable Mind]

interesting word....:2razz:

Glad ya like it. It fits most of your posts, including the OP.

 

[haymarket]

already answered

in which of your posts? I have searched and found nothing. Nobody else has found anything. This answer seems to exist only in your own imagination and not here in any post.

Where is it? Failure to provide a clear answer can only be taken by reasonable people as an inability for you to do so since you never presented an answer in the first place.

I must say that I highly suspect you are engaging in a rather immature and childish bit of nonsense - I want an answer so you are going to dig in your heels and refuse to give me one since you perceive me as the enemy and you simply will not give one inch. You simply WILL NOT provide the answer because I and others have asked for it and you fear exposing your own extremism and right wing agenda if you dare to do so.

 

[Master PO]

Well ok then all but one State chose to leave the Union by democratic convention of its delegates. And in every case it was the STATE that seceded not the citizens. Each State produced a document stating secession. Unless you think that you can rewrite proven history it was States that seceded.

You proved my point for me (in your reply). The 13th Amendment is the federal government telling the States that there can be no slavery. To be clear that is the Federal government telling the States what to do. According to your many posts on the subject you believe that it is illegal for the Federal Government to tell the States what to do.
ARTICLE XIII.

Section 1. Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime; whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2, Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.




The Constitution provides many situations where the Federal Government tells the States what top do. One of those you might recall pertaining to the Declaration of Independence and new States. Does the word repugnant ring a bell? Other things that the Federal Government tells States is how trading is done between the States and internationally. In fact the lack of Federal power is the main reasoning behind scraping the Articles of Confederation and starting a new government with a entirely new Constitution.

yes but it was through the "consent of the governed".

the 13th states that the federal government can WRITE federal law, to prevent a state from making slavery laws, or be used in criminal law on a person, however the person must take then action to violate the law.

"to tell what to do", means for the government to dictate, saying" you are going to do this whether you like it or because we say so".....it is law that makes a states obey the constitution, and the federal laws derived from it.

the problem of the AOC. WAS STATES COULD NOT PROPERLY DEFEND THEMSELVES ALONE, STATE WERE PRINTING THEIR OWN MONEY CAUSING INFLATION, AND OTHER STATES DID NOT WANT TO TAKE MONEY FROM OTHER STATES. STATES WERE CONSTANTLY FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER OVER LAWS.

the constitution was meant to solve these problems by delegating some powers which once were state powers over to the federal government.

the power of 1 military

the power of only 1 currency.

the power of congress to regulate commerce problems among the states....not inside them

and a judicial branch... to arbitrate problems between states, states and Citizens.

why would the states ratify A CONSTITUTION WHICH THEY CREATED , TO GRANT DICTATORIAL POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER THEM?

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION WAS TO FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE AOC , NOT CREATE A NEW CONSTITUTION.

 

[Master PO]

Glad ya like it. It fits most of your posts, including the OP.

actually, it means you are an Protégé of haymarket....i am waiting for you to use the word .....impotent..next

 

[Master PO]

in which of your posts? I have searched and found nothing. Nobody else has found anything. This answer seems to exist only in your own imagination and not here in any post.

Where is it? Failure to provide a clear answer can only be taken by reasonable people as an inability for you to do so since you never presented an answer in the first place.

I must say that I highly suspect you are engaging in a rather immature and childish bit of nonsense - I want an answer so you are going to dig in your heels and refuse to give me one since you perceive me as the enemy and you simply will not give one inch. You simply WILL NOT provide the answer because I and others have asked for it and you fear exposing your own extremism and right wing agenda if you dare to do so.

personal remarks...i guess its your last line of attack.

 

[haymarket]

personal remarks...i guess its your last line of attack.

Thank you for confirming you have never provided the answer to my question as to what your end game is here...... what your agenda is here .... why you are arguing that the Delcaration is law even though many have posted verifiable evidence that it has no effect of law and is not written as law.

Thank you for confirming that you are simply engaging in intellectual falsehood by pretending that you provided a specific answer when you never did.

Thank you for confirming you are playing a silly game in your replies refusing to name the post number or reproduce the answer.

 

[Master PO]

Thank you for confirming you have never provided the answer to my question as to what your end game is here...... what your agenda is here .... why you are arguing that the Delcaration is law even though many have posted verifiable evidence that it has no effect of law and is not written as law.

Thank you for confirming that you are simply engaging in intellectual falsehood by pretending that you provided a specific answer when you never did.

Thank you for confirming you are playing a silly game in your replies refusing to name the post number or reproduce the answer.

you are free to exercise the liberty of leaving this thread anytime...and to discard the information provided.

however i do not believe we shall see any exercise by you.

 

[haymarket]

you are free to exercise the liberty of leaving this thread anytime...and to discard the information provided.

however i do not believe we shall see any exercise by you.

Why is it the goal of libertarians to silence their opposition? Thank you for admitting that is your intention by playing these silly games here and refusing to state your goals and purposes.

 

[haymarket]

I again searched your posts EB starting from page 1. Here is you replying to me regarding my questions from your own post 23

Originally Posted by haymarket
So just what is your end game here Barkmann?

I don't know

Pretty much says it all. I asked you directly what your end game was and you replied that you did not know. Really? You do not know what your own intentions are? You do not know what your goals and objectives in pushing this line of argument are? You do not know why you are insisting that the Declaration is law?

And when I give you the opportunity over and over and over again to explain why you are bringing up historical trivia from well over a century ago - you run away and refuse to come clean and explain.

When I give you the opportunity over and over and over again to explain what this contention has to do with Americans living in the year 2015 and what its application is - you run away and refuse to come clean and explain.

So much for that issue.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

why would the states ratify A CONSTITUTION WHICH THEY CREATED , TO GRANT DICTATORIAL POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER THEM?

No one said that they did. You want everyone to be saying that so that your arguments make sense. But like I just said no one is saying that.

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION WAS TO FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE AOC , NOT CREATE A NEW CONSTITUTION.

Going in they wanted to fix the Articles of Confederation, but they soon decided to scrap the AOC and start completely over. ONE would think that you know such things. Even grade school kids know such things.

Did you ever wonder why George Washington is the first President of the United States of America? There were 8 Presidents under the Articles of Confederation. They served one year terms. But they dont count because under the US Constitution we became a new nation.


Perhaps you should take some classes on American history, read a few books? lol

 

[Master PO]

Why is it the goal of libertarians to silence their opposition? Thank you for admitting that is your intention by playing these silly games here and refusing to state your goals and purposes.

sorry you missed the word "liberty"...

 

[Master PO]

I again searched your posts EB starting from page 1. Here is you replying to me regarding my questions from your own post 23

actually you need to post it all, and not just the parts you wish to post.


Pretty much says it all. I asked you directly what your end game was and you replied that you did not know. Really? You do not know what your own intentions are? You do not know what your goals and objectives in pushing this line of argument are? You do not know why you are insisting that the Declaration is law?

And when I give you the opportunity over and over and over again to explain why you are bringing up historical trivia from well over a century ago - you run away and refuse to come clean and explain.

When I give you the opportunity over and over and over again to explain what this contention has to do with Americans living in the year 2015 and what its application is - you run away and refuse to come clean and explain.

So much for that issue.

actually you need to post it all, and not just the parts you wish to post.

post#22

Again - I don't give two craps about it. the principles of the Dec? You mean like all men are created equal ... that they have rights like liberty and other such blatant lies that the founders did not even believe when quill was placed on parchment? Those sacred principles which were ignored then and after? They were not enforced then and subsequently. they are meaningless and so is that language you quoted.

So just what is your end game here Barkmann? If people agree with you - then what nonsense are you going to put forth as the next layer in building your case?

post#23

in analyzing your quote here , he appears to me you are PISSED OFF...and that anger gives you away.

since you seek now in this thread to demonize the founding fathers, attacking them, ...It sets in my mind that you cannot escape the conclusion of what I have posted, so this makes you very angry......in self denial.

this is however proof positive ,that you have contempt for the founders and the founding documents they created, and what they believed in creating them...

again your demonization, though not flattering to the eyes, does bring a breath of fresh air to my soul.



I don't know, why don't you tell me, since you believe ,to know my mind.

 

[Master PO]

No one said that they did. You want everyone to be saying that so that your arguments make sense. But like I just said no one is saying that.

Going in they wanted to fix the Articles of Confederation, but they soon decided to scrap the AOC and start completely over. ONE would think that you know such things. Even grade school kids know such things.

Did you ever wonder why George Washington is the first President of the United States of America? There were 8 Presidents under the Articles of Confederation. They served one year terms. But they dont count because under the US Constitution we became a new nation.


Perhaps you should take some classes on American history, read a few books? lol

this is pretty stupid posting..which goes off on a lark, grade school, presidents of the AOC...and does not even serve a purpose...but to make the poster feel better.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

this is pretty stupid posting..which goes off on a lark, grade school, presidents of the AOC...and does not even serve a purpose...but to make the poster feel better.

lol You said this ignorant quote below. Are you standing by that ignorant statement or what?

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION WAS TO FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE AOC , NOT CREATE A NEW CONSTITUTION.

 

[Master PO]

lol You said this ignorant quote below. Are you standing by that ignorant statement or what?

that statement is correct, the purpose was fix the articles, because if you read you would find out that the states legislature were angry with the founders of the convention for creating a new constitution.

On May 25, 1787, delegates representing every state except Rhode Island convened at Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania State House for the Constitutional Convention. The building, which is now known as Independence Hall, had earlier seen the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the signing of the Articles of Confederation. The assembly immediately discarded the idea of amending the Articles of Confederation and set about drawing up a new scheme of government. Revolutionary War hero George Washington, a delegate from Virginia, was elected convention president.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/constitutional-convention-begins

In September 1786, at the Annapolis Convention, delegates from five states called for a constitutional convention in order to discuss possible improvements to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional convention took place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)


The Constitutional Convention (or the Philadelphia Convention) was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, the rules for the United States' first independent government. But when the fifty-five delegates attempted to amend the plan, they realized the task was impossible. The delegates scrapped the Articles of Confederation and secretly began working to devise an entirely new framework for government, the US Constitution.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_was_the_Constitutional_Convention_held

Between 1781 and 1785 attempts “to correct these errors” failed to secure the required unanimous consent of the state legislatures. Matters changed, however, in 1786. Following James Madison’s suggestion of 21 January 1786, the Virginia Legislature invited all the States to discuss ways to reduce interstate conflicts in Annapolis, Maryland. The “commissioners” in attendance at Annapolis during September 1786, chatted about these particular concerns, but suggested that the conversation be both deepened and widened. They endorsed a motion that a “Grand Convention” of all the States meet in Philadelphia the next May 1787 to discuss how to improve the Articles of Confederation.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/intro/

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called to revise the ailing Articles of Confederation. However, the Convention soon abandoned the Articles, drafting a new Constitution with a much stronger national government. Nine states had to approve the Constitution before it could go into effect. After a long and often bitter debate, eleven states ratified the Constitution, which instituted a new form of government for the United States.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/constit.html

In February of 1787, Congress authorized a convention, to be held in Philadelphia in May of that year, for the purpose of recommending changes to the Articles of Confederation. In what has come to be known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787, all of the states—with the exception of Rhode Island—sent delegates to debate how to amend the Articles of Confederation in order to alleviate several problems experienced by the United States after the War for Independence. Although the Convention eventually decided to scrap the Articles altogether, and recommend instead the adoption of an entirely new plan of government, all of the delegates were initially united by one belief—that something must be done in order to correct the "errors" of the American political system in the 1780s.

http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/road-constitutional-convention


NOW don't you look ignorant FreedomFromAll

 

[haymarket]

actually you need to post it all, and not just the parts you wish to post.

Adding extra verbage changes NOTHING. I asked you a direct question as to your motivation and end game and your reply was YOU DID NOT KNOW.

This is the big supposed answer you claim you make. No wonder you cannot explain it when even you do NOT KNOW what your goals and motivations are.

 

[haymarket]

NOW don't you look ignorant FreedomFromAll

Calling another poster IGNORANT when they simply disagree with your perspective is not advancing the discussion. EB - you yourself seem to not be aware of actual historical fact or at least you adopt a policy of pretending it does not exist when it threatens your belief system and political agenda.

A good example of this is your ignoring just what the Declaration was in the first place and what it did. It was NOT law. It was not intended to be law. An no Founder ever said it was law.

Not only is that not true, but it - the Declaration - was pretty much forgotten once it had served its sole purpose of announcing our separation from Great Britain in 1776.

Much has been written about this and the best comes from Pauliene Maier in her excellent book AMERICAN SCRIPTURE. Here is a mention of it

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legacy
Having served its original purpose in announcing the independence of the United States, the Declaration was initially neglected in the years immediately following the American Revolution.[133] Early celebrations of Independence Day, like early histories of the Revolution, largely ignored the Declaration. Although the act of declaring independence was considered important, the text announcing that act attracted little attention.[134] The Declaration was rarely mentioned during the debates about the United States Constitution, and its language was not incorporated into that document.[135] George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights was more influential, and its language was echoed in state constitutions and state bills of rights more often than Jefferson's words.[136] "In none of these documents", wrote Pauline Maier, "is there any evidence whatsoever that the Declaration of Independence lived in men's minds as a classic statement of American political principles."[137]

For a document that some dishonestly want to foist upon us a the law of the land - it played no such role in the time it was written nor in the years right after it was written. It served its purpose and was placed on the shelf as no longer relevant having done the sole job it was crafted to do.

Maier further points out that the Dec was only resurrected for narrow partisan purposes - which seems to also be the impetus behind the OP and its writer.

Revival of interest
In the United States, interest in the Declaration was revived in the 1790s with the emergence of America's first political parties.[148] Throughout the 1780s, few Americans knew, or cared, who wrote the Declaration.[149] But in the next decade, Jeffersonian Republicans sought political advantage over their rival Federalists by promoting both the importance of the Declaration and Jefferson as its author.[150] Federalists responded by casting doubt on Jefferson's authorship or originality, and by emphasizing that independence was declared by the whole Congress, with Jefferson as just one member of the drafting committee. Federalists insisted that Congress's act of declaring independence, in which Federalist John Adams had played a major role, was more important than the document announcing that act.[151] But this view, like the Federalist Party, would fade away, and before long the act of declaring independence would become synonymous with the document.

So it is clear: The Declaration was a very narrow document which announced the separation of the USA from Britain - a birth announcement if you will and was not at all considered anything beyond that limited purpose.

People on the right seem to constantly want to talk about original intent and want the world to consider what something meant at the time it was written.

The Declaration of Independence was not law of the land and never intended to be. If you disagree, feel free to present verifiable information just as I have presented here.

 

[Master PO]

Calling another poster IGNORANT when they simply disagree with your perspective is not advancing the discussio[/B]n. EB - you yourself seem to not be aware of actual historical fact or at least you adopt a policy of pretending it does not exist when it threatens your belief system and political agenda.

A good example of this is your ignoring just what the Declaration was in the first place and what it did. It was NOT law. It was not intended to be law. An no Founder ever said it was law.

Not only is that not true, but it - the Declaration - was pretty much forgotten once it had served its sole purpose of announcing our separation from Great Britain in 1776.

Much has been written about this and the best comes from Pauliene Maier in her excellent book AMERICAN SCRIPTURE. Here is a mention of it

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



For a document that some dishonestly want to foist upon us a the law of the land - it played no such role in the time it was written nor in the years right after it was written. It served its purpose and was placed on the shelf as no longer relevant having done the sole job it was crafted to do.

Maier further points out that the Dec was only resurrected for narrow partisan purposes - which seems to also be the impetus behind the OP and its writer.



So it is clear: The Declaration was a very narrow document which announced the separation of the USA from Britain - a birth announcement if you will and was not at all considered anything beyond that limited purpose.

People on the right seem to constantly want to talk about original intent and want the world to consider what something meant at the time it was written.

The Declaration of Independence was not law of the land and never intended to be. If you disagree, feel free to present verifiable information just as I have presented here.

false ...this is not correct.....simply disagree?....my post was labeled IGNORANT .......that i stated below

"THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION WAS TO FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE AOC , NOT CREATE A NEW CONSTITUTION"

my return post shows correctly i was right in what i said, and the other poster, who created/ made the IGNORANT comment, was made to look that way by his own actions

of the poster feels it is a personal attack on him.....no his own words he used came turned back to him for his error.

 

[Master PO]

Calling another poster IGNORANT when they simply disagree with your perspective is not advancing the discussion. EB - you yourself seem to not be aware of actual historical fact or at least you adopt a policy of pretending it does not exist when it threatens your belief system and political agenda.

A good example of this is your ignoring just what the Declaration was in the first place and what it did. It was NOT law. It was not intended to be law. An no Founder ever said it was law.

Not only is that not true, but it - the Declaration - was pretty much forgotten once it had served its sole purpose of announcing our separation from Great Britain in 1776.

Much has been written about this and the best comes from Pauliene Maier in her excellent book AMERICAN SCRIPTURE. Here is a mention of it

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



For a document that some dishonestly want to foist upon us a the law of the land - it played no such role in the time it was written nor in the years right after it was written. It served its purpose and was placed on the shelf as no longer relevant having done the sole job it was crafted to do.

Maier further points out that the Dec was only resurrected for narrow partisan purposes - which seems to also be the impetus behind the OP and its writer.



So it is clear: The Declaration was a very narrow document which announced the separation of the USA from Britain - a birth announcement if you will and was not at all considered anything beyond that limited purpose.

People on the right seem to constantly want to talk about original intent and want the world to consider what something meant at the time it was written.

The Declaration of Independence was not law of the land and never intended to be. If you disagree, feel free to present verifiable information just as I have presented here.

in which of your posts? I have searched and found nothing. Nobody else has found anything. This answer seems to exist only in your own imagination and not here in any post.

Where is it? Failure to provide a clear answer can only be taken by reasonable people as an inability for you to do so since you never presented an answer in the first place.

I must say that I highly suspect you are engaging in a rather immature and childish bit of nonsense - I want an answer so you are going to dig in your heels and refuse to give me one since you perceive me as the enemy and you simply will not give one inch. You simply WILL NOT provide the answer because I and others have asked for it and you fear exposing your own extremism and right wing agenda if you dare to do so.

"people who live in glasses houses should not throw stones"

my information about the DOI , has been correct, all the info/ links have been provided to you all.

the DOI IS non positive law of u.s. code by an act of congress

the DOI is recognized by federal law, in u.s. enabling laws.

When the Revised Statutes were printed in 1875, it became obvious to many that "errors" were abundant. These "errors" could have been inadvertently or mistakenly made or could have been created with deliberate design [2]. To correct these errors, Congress adopted an act correcting some of them; see Act of February 27, 1877, 19 Stat. 240, ch. 69. Going further, Congress authorized the publication of a corrected revision of the entire Revised Statutes; see Act of March 2, 1877, 19 Stat. 268, ch. 82. At first, this corrected revision was to be the "legal and conclusive evidence" of the law just as the first edition of the Revised Statutes was purported to be. However, on March 9, 1878, Congress changed its mind and amended the Act of March 2, 1877, so that the second revision of the Revised Statutes would only be "prima facie" evidence of the law; see Act of March 9, 1878, 20 Stat. 27, ch. 26.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

that statement is correct, the purpose was fix the articles, because if you read you would find out that the states legislature were angry with the founders of the convention for creating a new constitution.

[.....snip...]


NOW don't you look ignorant FreedomFromAll

Bwhahaha I said that they set out to fix the Articles of Confederation then decided to scrap them altogether and start over with a new Constitution. And that is what history shows. ANd that is also why Washington is the first President of the United State of America and not Hanson.

Of course though if your point was to just point out that the convention was conveyed to fix the Articles and ignore the result, I already stated that fact before you said it. So either you felt the need to repeat it and then follow it up with a page of proof of that for a specific reason. Is it because you think that the Constitution is illegal?

The Articles of Confederation while historically valuable are not empowered by being in the Front Matter of the US code book. The same goes for The Declaration of Independence, The Northwest Ordinance, And the Constitution (not to mention the analytical Constitution). Legally and historically The US Constitution replaced everything before it as the law of the land. SCOTUS can and does use the founding documents to decide the intent of the founders. But that doesnt mean that those documents have any power. And that is what we are talking about here is if the Declaration has any real legal power because it resides in the Front Matter of the US codes book. SO I challenge you to use the US codes book and find where it says that the Front Matter has any power of law?

 

[Paperview]

that statement is correct, the purpose was fix the articles, because if you read you would find out that the states legislature were angry with the founders of the convention for creating a new constitution.

On May 25, 1787, delegates representing every state except Rhode Island convened at Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania State House for the Constitutional Convention. The building, which is now known as Independence Hall, had earlier seen the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the signing of the Articles of Confederation. The assembly immediately discarded the idea of amending the Articles of Confederation and set about drawing up a new scheme of government. Revolutionary War hero George Washington, a delegate from Virginia, was elected convention president.

Constitutional Convention begins - May 25, 1787 - HISTORY.com

In September 1786, at the Annapolis Convention, delegates from five states called for a constitutional convention in order to discuss possible improvements to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional convention took place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787.

Constitutional Convention (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Constitutional Convention (or the Philadelphia Convention) was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, the rules for the United States' first independent government. But when the fifty-five delegates attempted to amend the plan, they realized the task was impossible. The delegates scrapped the Articles of Confederation and secretly began working to devise an entirely new framework for government, the US Constitution.

Why was the Constitutional Convention held

Between 1781 and 1785 attempts “to correct these errors” failed to secure the required unanimous consent of the state legislatures. Matters changed, however, in 1786. Following James Madison’s suggestion of 21 January 1786, the Virginia Legislature invited all the States to discuss ways to reduce interstate conflicts in Annapolis, Maryland. The “commissioners” in attendance at Annapolis during September 1786, chatted about these particular concerns, but suggested that the conversation be both deepened and widened. They endorsed a motion that a “Grand Convention” of all the States meet in Philadelphia the next May 1787 to discuss how to improve the Articles of Confederation.

Introduction to the Constitutional Convention | Teaching American History

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called to revise the ailing Articles of Confederation. However, the Convention soon abandoned the Articles, drafting a new Constitution with a much stronger national government. Nine states had to approve the Constitution before it could go into effect. After a long and often bitter debate, eleven states ratified the Constitution, which instituted a new form of government for the United States.
Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789 - To Form a More Perfect Union: The Work of the Continental Congress & the Constitutional Convention (American Memory from the Library of Congress)

In February of 1787, Congress authorized a convention, to be held in Philadelphia in May of that year, for the purpose of recommending changes to the Articles of Confederation. In what has come to be known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787, all of the states—with the exception of Rhode Island—sent delegates to debate how to amend the Articles of Confederation in order to alleviate several problems experienced by the United States after the War for Independence. Although the Convention eventually decided to scrap the Articles altogether, and recommend instead the adoption of an entirely new plan of government, all of the delegates were initially united by one belief—that something must be done in order to correct the "errors" of the American political system in the 1780s.

The Road to the Constitutional Convention | EDSITEment


NOW don't you look ignorant FreedomFromAll

lol. You just refuted yourself.

 

[Master PO]

Bwhahaha I said that they set out to fix the Articles of Confederation then decided to scrap them altogether and start over with a new Constitution. And that is what history shows. ANd that is also why Washington is the first President of the United State of America and not Hanson.

Of course though if your point was to just point out that the convention was conveyed to fix the Articles and ignore the result, I already stated that fact before you said it. So either you felt the need to repeat it and then follow it up with a page of proof of that for a specific reason. Is it because you think that the Constitution is illegal?

The Articles of Confederation while historically valuable are not empowered by being in the Front Matter of the US code book. The same goes for The Declaration of Independence, The Northwest Ordinance, And the Constitution (not to mention the analytical Constitution). Legally and historically The US Constitution replaced everything before it as the law of the land. SCOTUS can and does use the founding documents to decide the intent of the founders. But that doesnt mean that those documents have any power. And that is what we are talking about here is if the Declaration has any real legal power because it resides in the Front Matter of the US codes book. SO I challenge you to use the US codes book and find where it says that the Front Matter has any power of law?

sorry.... now you are trying to deflect and move to a different subject.

you stated my quote was ignorant...when i stated the constitutional convention was to fix the articles, and now that you have been proven very wrong you are trying to go and separate yourself from your post..the post was correct.

lol You said this ignorant quote below. Are you standing by that ignorant statement or what?

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION WAS TO FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE AOC , NOT CREATE A NEW CONSTITUTION.

so again my statement was correct and not ignorant .......so you made an error...by stating that

 

[Master PO]

lol. You just refuted yourself.

nice try.

THE "PURPOSE" OF THE CONVENTION WAS TO FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE AOC , NOT CREATE A NEW CONSTITUTION.

In February of 1787, Congress authorized a convention, to be held in Philadelphia in May of that year, for the "purpose" of recommending changes to the Articles of Confederation

convention” of all the States meet in Philadelphia the next May 1787 to discuss how to improve the Articles of Confederation.

called for a constitutional convention in order to discuss possible improvements to the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Master PO]

my post has been correct all along, the congress by an official act, made the Declaration of independence .."PRIMA FACIE "...evidence of law in 1878.