Re: Mike O'meara Thread Assholes
Posted by:
Eekleberry
()
Date: May 23, 2015 12:51AM
Rhode Island’s Curious Constitutional Conundrum
May 29 is the 225th anniversary of Rhode Island’s ratification of the United States Constitution. Yet despite the well documented historical fact that it did indeed ratify the Constitution, the admission of Rhode Island into the Union in 1790 was thoroughly unconstitutional, and to this day The Ocean State has never been constitutionally admitted into the Union. More specifically, because the Constitution explicitly requires that new states be admitted into the Union by an Act of Congress, any State seeking admission into the Union after it went into effect could only be lawfully admitted pursuant to such an act. Consequently, Rhode Island, which remained outside and independent of the United States well after the constitution had gone into effect, was not constitutionally eligible to enter the Union by virtue of simply ratifying the Constitution. In point of fact, that mode of admission was uniquely reserved for only those States that had ratified the Constitution prior to its official enactment. Unfortunately, this reduces the ratification of Rhode Island to a mere legal nullity, utterly bereft of force or effect.
The constitutional logic which reveals Rhode Island’s dilemma is found in the particular timeline of events regarding the adoption of the Constitution and the formation of the United States. To that end, the Constitutional Convention adjourned on September 17, 1787, and by April 30, 1789, George Washington had been inaugurated as the nation's first President. The April 30 date is particularly important, because with both a duly elected Congress and a duly elected President having assumed their respective Offices, the new United States Government met the constitutional requirements which would enable it to enact legislation. Most emphatically then, as of April 30, 1789, the newly adopted U.S. Constitution was unequivocally recognized as the supreme law of the land. It should be remembered, however, that as of April 30, 1789, Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution, was not a constituent member of the United States, and had no constitutional relationship whatever to the eleven States which comprised, at that time, the United States of America (North Carolina had also not ratified). How then, under the Constitution, would Rhode Island be able to join the Union?
The singular method by which new States may be lawfully admitted into the United States is promulgated, controlled, and governed by Article IV, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The language employed for the purpose is clear, direct, and lucid, and it reads as follows: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress". It is this provision of the Constitution, and this provision only, which establishes and describes the exclusive method by which new States may be admitted into the Union. And it is vitally important to understand that within the entire text of Article IV, there is no reference whatever to admitting any entity other than a new State into the Union. More specifically, within the parameters of Article IV there is no exception carved out which would allow a political entity such as an "original state", a "former state", or an “existing state”, to gain admission into the Union by virtue of simply ratifying the Constitution. Instead, in order for a new State to be constitutionally admitted into the Union, it must be consistent with the plain text and particular requirements of Article IV. In other words, a new State must be admitted into the Union by an act of Congress.
The traditional narrative regarding the formation of the United States and adoption of the Constitution uncritically assumes that Rhode Island was inherently entitled to enter the Union by simply ratifying the constitution. But the traditional narrative is wrong. Moreover, there seems to be no satisfactory answer as to why the First Congress was so insouciant, even negligent, in managing Rhode Island’s admission. Perhaps the best hypothesis that can be offered is that Congress tacitly and implicitly extended some sort of informal grace period for ratification to the original thirteen states, but if that is the case, such a grace period was clearly not warranted by the Constitution. So on the 225th anniversary of Rhode Island’s improper ratification, it is perhaps time for Congress to correct the record and admit Rhode Island into the Union. Properly.
Rhode Island’s Curious Constitutional Conundrum
May 29 is the 225th anniversary of Rhode Island’s ratification of the United States Constitution. Yet despite the well documented historical fact that it did indeed ratify the Constitution, the admission of Rhode Island into the Union in 1790 was thoroughly unconstitutional, and to this day The Ocean State has never been constitutionally admitted into the Union. More specifically, because the Constitution explicitly requires that new states be admitted into the Union by an Act of Congress, any State seeking admission into the Union after it went into effect could only be lawfully admitted pursuant to such an act. Consequently, Rhode Island, which remained outside and independent of the United States well after the constitution had gone into effect, was not constitutionally eligible to enter the Union by virtue of simply ratifying the Constitution. In point of fact, that mode of admission was uniquely reserved for only those States that had ratified the Constitution prior to its official enactment. Unfortunately, this reduces the ratification of Rhode Island to a mere legal nullity, utterly bereft of force or effect.
The constitutional logic which reveals Rhode Island’s dilemma is found in the particular timeline of events regarding the adoption of the Constitution and the formation of the United States. To that end, the Constitutional Convention adjourned on September 17, 1787, and by April 30, 1789, George Washington had been inaugurated as the nation's first President. The April 30 date is particularly important, because with both a duly elected Congress and a duly elected President having assumed their respective Offices, the new United States Government met the constitutional requirements which would enable it to enact legislation. Most emphatically then, as of April 30, 1789, the newly adopted U.S. Constitution was unequivocally recognized as the supreme law of the land. It should be remembered, however, that as of April 30, 1789, Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution, was not a constituent member of the United States, and had no constitutional relationship whatever to the eleven States which comprised, at that time, the United States of America (North Carolina had also not ratified). How then, under the Constitution, would Rhode Island be able to join the Union?
The singular method by which new States may be lawfully admitted into the United States is promulgated, controlled, and governed by Article IV, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The language employed for the purpose is clear, direct, and lucid, and it reads as follows: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress". It is this provision of the Constitution, and this provision only, which establishes and describes the exclusive method by which new States may be admitted into the Union. And it is vitally important to understand that within the entire text of Article IV, there is no reference whatever to admitting any entity other than a new State into the Union. More specifically, within the parameters of Article IV there is no exception carved out which would allow a political entity such as an "original state", a "former state", or an “existing state”, to gain admission into the Union by virtue of simply ratifying the Constitution. Instead, in order for a new State to be constitutionally admitted into the Union, it must be consistent with the plain text and particular requirements of Article IV. In other words, a new State must be admitted into the Union by an act of Congress.
The traditional narrative regarding the formation of the United States and adoption of the Constitution uncritically assumes that Rhode Island was inherently entitled to enter the Union by simply ratifying the constitution. But the traditional narrative is wrong. Moreover, there seems to be no satisfactory answer as to why the First Congress was so insouciant, even negligent, in managing Rhode Island’s admission. Perhaps the best hypothesis that can be offered is that Congress tacitly and implicitly extended some sort of informal grace period for ratification to the original thirteen states, but if that is the case, such a grace period was clearly not warranted by the Constitution. So on the 225th anniversary of Rhode Island’s improper ratification, it is perhaps time for Congress to correct the record and admit Rhode Island into the Union. Properly.
"No shit!" is dumber than a box of rocks. Hey "No Shit!", you're a complete asswipe!!!!! Now go fuck yourself in the ass with an 18 inch dildo and take every inch in your loose asshole. You phukking piece of puke.