Stop Calling Things Unconstitutional

[Master PO]

Despite your repeated indications otherwise, immigration is not the same as naturalization.

And immigration was in fact a state power. Immigration does not involve any sort of compact with either another State, or another country.

Congress really had no controls or limits on immigration by the terms of constitution, and deliberately so, because the federal government had no territory it was entitled to by that constitution to legislate over, and immigrate into.

If Congress could control immigration, and admit people into the sovereign territory of a state, it might engage an assault upon that state via immigration, even as we see occuring right now by our the Federal government's refusal to check entry into this contry.

1) Congress' only power enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, is the power to institute a "uniform rule of naturalization". That "uniformity" is a reference to uniformity among the various States, because they were engaging the actual naturalization to be "citizens of the State of _____" with that citizenship being recognized in each of the other several States. States could require additional rules of naturalization, but were obligated to apply the minimal federal terms.

2) Congress had no authority over immigration, because to immigrate one must enter into a territory, and by the Constitution the only territories that the Congress had authority to legislate over was the 10x10 District of Columbia, and federal property such as forts, arsenals, military bases, and territories administered by Congress inclusive of prospective States. That's it! There's nothing in there really to "immigrate" into.

3) Even before taking up residence in a State, the various states would require an oath of allegiance unto the State and union, years and even decades before any sort of reciprocal citizenship was granted. Denizens were given permission to take up residence in a state, but without any intention of granting citizenship to them, or their offspring, as their allegiance to a foreign nation remained.

4) All of the above changed after the Civil War, not by any amendment to the Constitution, but rather by usurpation by the federal government of powers which it did not, and still does not, legitimately have. The first Immigration Act written by Congress was in 1875, a decade after the Civil War, Page Act of 1875 , followed by the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882.

In response to these Chinese Exclusion Acts, in 1898, THIRTY YEARS after the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark acted against Congress' deliberate and lawful intent in those Chinese Exclusion Acts, in a roundabout fashion, by deliberately corrupting the intent of "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment, to be jurisdiction of law, rather than complete jurisdiction of allegiance, as originally intended, thereby through Judicial legislation-from-the-bench turning the 14th Amendment into creating a whole new type of citizen by virtue of mere birth on U.S. soil - Anchor babies.

The Horace Gray court did this in Wong Kim Ark despite even a joint statement from Congress only 6 years after the 14th Amendment, on June 22, 1874, House Report No. 784, indicating:

““The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” "
​

The intent of this statement was to recognize that no person merely born on American soil could be born a citizen of the United States, if they were born to parents, either of whom was a citizen owing allegiance to a foreign nation. Such a person would be born with the allegiance of their parents, having more than one allegiance, and therefore could not be an American citizen without naturalization.

Yet the Gray court ignored this longstanding history and intention existing from this nation's inception, and fabricated on its own, without legislative authority, not only anchor babies, but forced recognition of dual allegiance contrary to the intent of Congress, thereby giving away our national sovereignty, and control over immigration and naturalization.

Today our immigration problems and overburdening of infrastructure, are the result of this rogue and criminal Gray court, and the ongoing criminal intent of current members of Congress.

As has been shown by other information elsewhere, the Civil War as not just a war against slavery, but was actually about the federal government's usurpation of powers nowhere its own legitimately by the Constitution, and making war against the Constitution, and this country's free citizenry.

In short, you're entirely wrong in your claims about immigration.

problems which would arise of states controlled immigration:

this would make states in total control of their own borders and no other state or federal government could violate those borders........its laws.


if states controlled their own borders, the state department could not issue visas to america, at all becuase they would have no authority over the interior of the u.s.

if states controlled their own borders, a foreign head of state could not come to america, unless a state issued a visa, this means intentional talks by heads of states, coming to america would have to apply for visas from every state they plan to visit, and since foreign nations and a state cannot agree on things .......without congress approval.

if states controlled their own borders, no foreign ships or planes, could dock /land in america unless, the foreign nation and the states agreed on immigration, and that would take the approval of congress.

if states controlled their own borders, states could ban immigration from certain foreign nations, it would then compel every other state to institute that ban, since any state not following the states ban would circumvent, or undermine the effective ban on that nation by a state by letting foreign nationals into the interior of america.

if states controlled their own borders, any ban of a nation by a state, would cause foreign nations to retaliate against America's immigration into their nation.

if states controlled their own borders, any foreign national found within a state, could not be repatriated to his foreign nation, becuase the state and a foreign nation cannot make an agreement on their return, .......without congress approval.

if states controlled their own borders, a foreign national who committed a crime, under due process he has a right to counsel, even foreign counsel, but since the state and a foreign nation cannot agree, approval by congress would have to be given, if counsel from outside the u.s. is sought.

if states controlled their own borders, foreign vehicles from Canada or Mexico, would have to get separate visas of each state, they sought to operate in if they drove throughout the u.s., and since no agreement can be made between the two, ...congress must approve.

if states controlled their own borders, if one state had a very liberal immigration policy, and let in foreign nationals, as compared to a state with very conservative immigration polices, this would allow foreigners to circumvent the conservative states policy, and cause it higher enforcement costs, which it would sue the state with the liberal polices, this would cause immigration lawsuits in courts, with states fighting states over immigration.

if states controlled their own borders, immigration among the states would be at a halt, becuase the states among themselves would have to agree all the 50 immigration laws instituted by the states and reach an agreement, which they cannot do without congress approval.

these are just some i thought of, i know i can think of more.

 

[Trip]

problems which would arise of states controlled immigration:

this would make states in total control of their own borders and no other state or federal government could violate those borders........its laws.


if states controlled their own borders, the state department could not issue visas to america, at all becuase they would have no authority over the interior of the u.s.

if states controlled their own borders, a foreign head of state could not come to america, unless a state issued a visa, this means intentional talks by heads of states, coming to america would have to apply for visas from every state they plan to visit, and since foreign nations and a state cannot agree on things .......without congress approval.

if states controlled their own borders, no foreign ships or planes, could dock /land in america unless, the foreign nation and the states agreed on immigration, and that would take the approval of congress.

if states controlled their own borders, states could ban immigration from certain foreign nations, it would then compel every other state to institute that ban, since any state not following the states ban would circumvent, or undermine the effective ban on that nation by a state by letting foreign nationals into the interior of america.

if states controlled their own borders, any ban of a nation by a state, would cause foreign nations to retaliate against America's immigration into their nation.

if states controlled their own borders, any foreign national found within a state, could not be repatriated to his foreign nation, becuase the state and a foreign nation cannot make an agreement on their return, .......without congress approval.

if states controlled their own borders, a foreign national who committed a crime, under due process he has a right to counsel, even foreign counsel, but since the state and a foreign nation cannot agree, approval by congress would have to be given, if counsel from outside the u.s. is sought.

if states controlled their own borders, foreign vehicles from Canada or Mexico, would have to get separate visas of each state, they sought to operate in if they drove throughout the u.s., and since no agreement can be made between the two, ...congress must approve.

if states controlled their own borders, if one state had a very liberal immigration policy, and let in foreign nationals, as compared to a state with very conservative immigration polices, this would allow foreigners to circumvent the conservative states policy, and cause it higher enforcement costs, which it would sue the state with the liberal polices, this would cause immigration lawsuits in courts, with states fighting states over immigration.

if states controlled their own borders, immigration among the states would be at a halt, becuase the states among themselves would have to agree all the 50 immigration laws instituted by the states and reach an agreement, which they cannot do without congress approval.

these are just some i thought of, i know i can think of more.

I gotta love a guy that is willing to hand over freedom for tyranny, simply because it is all he has ever known, and what we are subjected to now on every front.

There's no :IF: about this. This is the form of government those Founders intended by leaving States Sovereign, and only empowering the federal government do to those specific things which the states themselves could not each do individually.

The State Department can only issue visas into the country, but cannot dictate what states themselves reject, or those whom they eject.

Foreign planes and boats could land and dock, just as they always did prior to the Civil War, and afterwards. The ability to land and dock in a state, is not some wild authority that rests only with the federal government.

If any state were to ban a foreign nation, why would this matter to that foreign nation, or any one of the other states? It wouldn't, and we would not have our corrupt government creating a foreign nation and global authority on our own soil, that allows avoidance of national and foreign laws, which we know today as the United Nations.

If states controlled their own borders, and they had due cause to keep entry out from Canada, perhaps for their corrupt ideology of politically correct speech, even blackballing American citizens for their own speech, then that is a choice able to be made by sovereign authorities over their own soil, and those persons would have to enter into the country by another means, or curtail their own government in its actions against American's free speech.


Please show me ANYWHERE in the United States Constitution that Congress has ANY AUTHORITY whatsoever to approve the legislative actions of a State over its own sovereign territory, all your red highlighted corruptions of the Constitution, which do enable statist authoritarianism and tyranny, and promote a thorough corruption of the Constitution.

Yes, I'm sure you can think of more, as those advocating statist authoritarianism are never short of excuses for their dictates, but this is not the government that this nation's Founders intended. Enumerated Powers are the key, and those powers of the federal government over that territory do not exist.

 

[beerftw]

Simple Fact. If the Supreme Court says something is Constitutional, then it is legal law! Did you know that there is a process to remove laws? Why don't we just focus on doing that instead of having the right wing media circus declare everything being unconstitutional? It makes those of us who care about the legislation process look bad.


It does depend on what kind of a law it is. If it is a local law such as city or county, it would take either a vote of the city.county council or a vote of the people to remove the law. On a state level, it would require a vote of the state legislature or a vote of the entire state population to remove a law. Federal law - vote of the House and Senate - or a election of the entire country. If it is part of a local, state or federal Constitution, the process becomes more involved, and usually requires BOTH a vote of the appropriate legislators AND of the population the amend the Constitution.

Yes, this process takes a long time, but shouting baseless claims of unconstitutionality, doesn't help either.

first off,the supreme court has no constitutional authority over the constitution,it granted itself that power,and the supreme court wont go against itself in a court case being the highest court.

so technically claiming something is constitutional because the supreme court says it is doesnt make it constitutional.the supreme court only has authority under the constitution to determine if specific laws are constitutional,but has no authority at all todetermine what the amendments mean,meaning they have zero authority to rule on any amendment or any interperatation of it,but only has power to determine if laws conform with it.

 

[Master PO]

I gotta love a guy that is willing to hand over freedom for tyranny, simply because it is all he has ever known, and what we are subjected to now on every front.

There's no :IF: about this. This is the form of government those Founders intended by leaving States Sovereign, and only empowering the federal government do to those specific things which the states themselves could not each do individually.

The State Department can only issue visas into the country, but cannot dictate what states themselves reject, or those whom they eject.

Foreign planes and boats could land and dock, just as they always did prior to the Civil War, and afterwards. The ability to land and dock in a state, is not some wild authority that rests only with the federal government.

If any state were to ban a foreign nation, why would this matter to that foreign nation, or any one of the other states? It wouldn't, and we would not have our corrupt government creating a foreign nation and global authority on our own soil, that allows avoidance of national and foreign laws, which we know today as the United Nations.

If states controlled their own borders, and they had due cause to keep entry out from Canada, perhaps for their corrupt ideology of politically correct speech, even blackballing American citizens for their own speech, then that is a choice able to be made by sovereign authorities over their own soil, and those persons would have to enter into the country by another means, or curtail their own government in its actions against American's free speech.


Please show me ANYWHERE in the United States Constitution that Congress has ANY AUTHORITY whatsoever to approve the legislative actions of a State over its own sovereign territory, all your red highlighted corruptions of the Constitution, which do enable statist authoritarianism and tyranny, and promote a thorough corruption of the Constitution.

Yes, I'm sure you can think of more, as those advocating statist authoritarianism are never short of excuses for their dictates, but this is not the government that this nation's Founders intended. Enumerated Powers are the key, and those powers of the federal government over that territory do not exist.

dont get me wrong, i do like the idea of states being in control, however i see many problems created by it.

as i see it, any immigration that would take place, if it would be under the control of the states, this then being a state power, the federal government would have no authority to issue any visa of immigration to America.

this would mean the states have total control over borders of america, what happens when california lets in millions of legals, and many immigrate to states were immigration laws a strict on illegals, do the states file lawsuits, claiming California in trying to undermine their immigration laws.

you know their would be states who would want to throw open the borders and those who would not.

as to my argument of congress approval of many things, its article 1 section 10 clause 3

 

[Trip]

dont get me wrong, i do like the idea of states being in control, however i see many problems created by it.

as i see it, any immigration that would take place, if it would be under the control of the states, this then being a state power, the federal government would have no authority to issue any visa of immigration to America.

this would mean the states have total control over borders of america, what happens when california lets in millions of legals, and many immigrate to states were immigration laws a strict on illegals, do the states file lawsuits, claiming California in trying to undermine their immigration laws.

you know their would be states who would want to throw open the borders and those who would not.

as to my argument of congress approval of many things, its article 1 section 10 clause 3

Not allowing the states to control their own immigration, is like not allowing a family to control who comes into their own house. As I recall, the Constitution covers the latter consideration by the 3rd Amendment, oft overlooked, and the former in the fact of state sovereignty, which is not just an empty word, and the federal government being limited to solely enumerated powers.

Nowhere in those powers is there any federal authority to dictate to the states who they must accept into their borders, no federal power over immigration, but rather only over naturalization, but what we have today is the federal government claiming a non-existent authority over immigration, and forcing the various states to endure rising crime, rape, murder, homicide, kidnapping, and the federal government is using this to blackmail the states into making citizens of these lovely criminals. Or haven't you caught this as it's been all going down live, before us?

States don't have total control over THE borders, but rather THEIR own borders, and that is something entirely congruent with and inseparable from "Sovereignty". What do you imagine it meant?

If there are states that want to throw open the borders, such as California, then let them drowned in their own dung-heap, and do not throw them a lifeline. In the meantime, those other states are not compelled to be in a suicide pact with the federal government holding a gun to their heads.

 

[Master PO]

Not allowing the states to control their own immigration, is like not allowing a family to control who comes into their own house. As I recall, the Constitution covers the latter consideration by the 3rd Amendment, oft overlooked, and the former in the fact of state sovereignty, which is not just an empty word, and the federal government being limited to solely enumerated powers.

Nowhere in those powers is there any federal authority to dictate to the states who they must accept into their borders, no federal power over immigration, but rather only over naturalization, but what we have today is the federal government claiming a non-existent authority over immigration, and forcing the various states to endure rising crime, rape, murder, homicide, kidnapping, and the federal government is using this to blackmail the states into making citizens of these lovely criminals. Or haven't you caught this as it's been all going down live, before us?

States don't have total control over THE borders, but rather THEIR own borders, and that is something entirely congruent with and inseparable from "Sovereignty". What do you imagine it meant?

If there are states that want to throw open the borders, such as California, then let them drowned in their own dung-heap, and do not throw them a lifeline. In the meantime, those other states are not compelled to be in a suicide pact with the federal government holding a gun to their heads.

trip would you explain to me, how the states get around article 1 section 10 clause 3.

becuase under that clause states cannot reach agreements among themselves or foreign nations.

how can a ship dock or a plane land in a state?, since the state and the foreign nation, would have to agree before hand, on the entering within that states borders.

and since the clause prevents them from talking how can such operations take place.

 

[phishfi]

trip would you explain to me, how the states get around article 1 section 10 clause 3.

becuase under that clause states cannot reach agreements among themselves or foreign nations.

how can a ship dock or a plane land in a state?, since the state and the foreign nation, would have to agree before hand, on the entering within that states borders.

and since the clause prevents them from talking how can such operations take place.

Why does a foreign nation have to come to an agreement for some individual to fly to one of the States. Before the faa existed, people flew on planes to other States, without some crazy interstate agreements (gasp!). You're making this so much more complicated than it has to be.


On the subject of one state laxing their border laws, it would be as simple as a state increasing immigration regulation on the borders of the States causing the problem, which would then hurt that state by making interstate commerce that much more difficult, and incentivize that state to increase their border security and get smarter about their immigration laws...

 

[sangha]

problems which would arise of states controlled immigration:

You can't ignore what the constitution says, and what it does not say, simply because you don't like what it means.

 

[Trip]

trip would you explain to me, how the states get around article 1 section 10 clause 3.

becuase under that clause states cannot reach agreements among themselves or foreign nations.

how can a ship dock or a plane land in a state?, since the state and the foreign nation, would have to agree before hand, on the entering within that states borders.

and since the clause prevents them from talking how can such operations take place.

No matter how often you indicate it, immigration does not involve any sort of agreement or treaty with any other nation, but rather only the resolve to admit, or not admit individuals form other nations.

A ship or a plan requests permission to land. They don't need an agreement beforehand, they just need to not be on hostile terms.

 

[Master PO]

No matter how often you indicate it, immigration does not involve any sort of agreement or treaty with any other nation, but rather only the resolve to admit, or not admit individuals form other nations.

A ship or a plan requests permission to land. They don't need an agreement beforehand, they just need to not be on hostile terms.

you know yesterday, i thought about this a lot, and i wondered how you and i trip+ were on the opposite side of the fence, since we are usually on the same side.

after thinking about this for a long time, and thinking you were wrong, i came to the conclusion i was WRONG.

i started to think about what you had said before and your discussion, about early america, and i soon realized i was talking about america in the modern age, and i said to myself , i cant do that.

i have to remember what the founders were thinking, becuase the constitution has not changed to give powers to government, but some how i was thinking on the level of what the federal government has created ..and not thinking about that they have subverted and have usurped powers from the states.

remembering Madison saying" Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

yes, after finding myself on the side of the federal government, knowing the things they have done, subverting the 10th amendment..i know again.. i was wrong!

so easily, government can lead us to believe, by looking at them on today's level, that things they are doing look right, are needed and important for them to do, although what they are doing is not within supreme law of the law.

so i admit my error to you, and thank you for reminding me of the founders again, what their true idea was.

 

[phishfi]

you know yesterday, i thought about this a lot, and i wondered how you and i trip+ were on the opposite side of the fence, since we are usually on the same side.

after thinking about this for a long time, and thinking you were wrong, i came to the conclusion i was WRONG.

i started to think about what you had said before and your discussion, about early america, and i soon realized i was talking about america in the modern age, and i said to myself , i cant do that.

i have to remember what the founders were thinking, becuase the constitution has not changed to give powers to government, but some how i was thinking on the level of what the federal government has created ..and not thinking about that they have subverted and have usurped powers from the states.

remembering Madison saying" Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

yes, after finding myself on the side of the federal government, knowing the things they have done, subverting the 10th amendment..i know again.. i was wrong!

so easily, government can lead us to believe, by looking at them on today's level, that things they are doing look right, are needed and important for them to do, although what they are doing is not within supreme law of the law.

so i admit my error to you, and thank you for reminding me of the founders again, what their true idea was.

+a million and one for such a great post

 

[fmw]

you know yesterday, i thought about this a lot, and i wondered how you and i trip+ were on the opposite side of the fence, since we are usually on the same side.

after thinking about this for a long time, and thinking you were wrong, i came to the conclusion i was WRONG.

i started to think about what you had said before and your discussion, about early america, and i soon realized i was talking about america in the modern age, and i said to myself , i cant do that.

i have to remember what the founders were thinking, becuase the constitution has not changed to give powers to government, but some how i was thinking on the level of what the federal government has created ..and not thinking about that they have subverted and have usurped powers from the states.

remembering Madison saying" Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

yes, after finding myself on the side of the federal government, knowing the things they have done, subverting the 10th amendment..i know again.. i was wrong!

so easily, government can lead us to believe, by looking at them on today's level, that things they are doing look right, are needed and important for them to do, although what they are doing is not within supreme law of the law.

so i admit my error to you, and thank you for reminding me of the founders again, what their true idea was.

Bravo. I have a short list of things that I would change to help reduce corruption in the federal government. One of them is to outlaw payments to state or local governments by the federal government. It is how the federal government has corrupted and usurped power from the states. I blame the state governors even more. They sold their souls to the Feds over the years and states rights with them by accepting it. The states are taxing authorities on their own. There shouldn't be a financial link between them and the federal government.

 

[phishfi]

Bravo. I have a short list of things that I would change to help reduce corruption in the federal government. One of them is to outlaw payments to state or local governments by the federal government. It is how the federal government has corrupted and usurped power from the states. I blame the state governors even more. They sold their souls to the Feds over the years and states rights with them by accepting it. The states are taxing authorities on their own. There shouldn't be a financial link between them and the federal government.

Honestly, there shouldn't be one between the people and the federal government either. The federal government should just bill the states, that would put the states closer to the money and laws the feds are wasting...

 

[Trip]

you know yesterday, i thought about this a lot, and i wondered how you and i trip+ were on the opposite side of the fence, since we are usually on the same side.

after thinking about this for a long time, and thinking you were wrong, i came to the conclusion i was WRONG.

i started to think about what you had said before and your discussion, about early america, and i soon realized i was talking about america in the modern age, and i said to myself , i cant do that.

i have to remember what the founders were thinking, becuase the constitution has not changed to give powers to government, but some how i was thinking on the level of what the federal government has created ..and not thinking about that they have subverted and have usurped powers from the states.

remembering Madison saying" Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

yes, after finding myself on the side of the federal government, knowing the things they have done, subverting the 10th amendment..i know again.. i was wrong!

so easily, government can lead us to believe, by looking at them on today's level, that things they are doing look right, are needed and important for them to do, although what they are doing is not within supreme law of the law.

so i admit my error to you, and thank you for reminding me of the founders again, what their true idea was.

Well said, ernst! :applaud


The 3rd Amendment to the United States Constituiton:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.​

We instinctively reject the idea of troops being quartered against our will, in our own homes, but what about state sovereignty?

If states were unable to exclude from their borders persons that were unwelcome, unsavory, and a threat to the people, then those states really have no sovereignty at all. In fact if the decision about immigration were to rest with the federal government, then that federal government might be disposed for its own purposes and the expansion of its own power, to allow unfettered immigration into states, ostensibly itself being the source of the invasion and attack on those states!

And that is in fact what we have going on today, with even the award of anchor baby citizenship being the fabrication of the federal government itself, not even the legislature, but one criminal court, and that attraction being used to fuel a policy of invasion that is not even any sort of immigration at all.

The only "immigration reform" we need is to remove the federal government's vile corruption from the matter.

 

[fmw]

Honestly, there shouldn't be one between the people and the federal government either. The federal government should just bill the states, that would put the states closer to the money and laws the feds are wasting...

That's a great concept. I like it even better than mine. Excellent.

 

[Lukas105]

Then I guess denying Dred Scott his civil rights was alright? The Supreme Court is just an arm of the Liberalism or Conservatism in this country, not what the original Constitution was to be meant by.

Simple Fact. If the Supreme Court says something is Constitutional, then it is legal law! Did you know that there is a process to remove laws? Why don't we just focus on doing that instead of having the right wing media circus declare everything being unconstitutional? It makes those of us who care about the legislation process look bad.


It does depend on what kind of a law it is. If it is a local law such as city or county, it would take either a vote of the city.county council or a vote of the people to remove the law. On a state level, it would require a vote of the state legislature or a vote of the entire state population to remove a law. Federal law - vote of the House and Senate - or a election of the entire country. If it is part of a local, state or federal Constitution, the process becomes more involved, and usually requires BOTH a vote of the appropriate legislators AND of the population the amend the Constitution.

Yes, this process takes a long time, but shouting baseless claims of unconstitutionality, doesn't help either.

 

[phishfi]

Then I guess denying Dred Scott his civil rights was alright? The Supreme Court is just an arm of the Liberalism or Conservatism in this country, not what the original Constitution was to be meant by.

Exactly! And nullification was the first move by an form of government to actively fight slavery!

 

[AllanHampton]

Simple Fact. If the Supreme Court says something is Constitutional, then it is legal law!

No, SC decisions are not law; Article I, Section 1, clause 1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,".

Representatives have the power of impeachment (Article I, Section 2, clause 5, "The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.).

Representatives can impeach a Judge for acting badly; Article III, Section 1, Clause 1. ... "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,"

Citizens have the exclusive power to elect Representatives every two years; Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,"

 

[Morrigi]

Everything is unconstitutional! The Internet is unconstitutional! You're unconstitutional!



....Am I unconstitutional? :c

 

[AllanHampton]

Everything is unconstitutional! The Internet is unconstitutional! You're unconstitutional!



....Am I unconstitutional? :c

Thanks for your brilliant enlightenment!