Failed to understand " The grandest of these ideals is an American promise that everyone belongs"

I will be pleased to consider
the 2 issues that u have raised, Oristar,
but I note that u have not responded to the questions that I addressed to U
(those that u quoted). Quid pro quo ?

David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I will be pleased to consider
the 2 issues that u have raised, Oristar,
but I note that u have not responded to the questions that I addressed to U
(those that u quoted). Quid pro quo ?

David

Let's take time for such a serious topic, Dave.

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I will be pleased to consider
the 2 issues that u have raised, Oristar,
but I note that u have not responded to the questions that I addressed to U
(those that u quoted). Quid pro quo ?

David

Let's take time for such a serious topic, Dave.

That will be necessary
to a thorough and methodical analysis
of the material that u have exhibited (which I have in mind).

David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I will be pleased to consider
the 2 issues that u have raised, Oristar,
but I note that u have not responded to the questions that I addressed to U
(those that u quoted). Quid pro quo ?

David

Let's take time for such a serious topic, Dave.

That will be necessary
to a thorough and methodical analysis
of the material that u have exhibited (which I have in mind).

David

Yeah, even if it takes days or weeks for one question.
For example, google and other searches offered me no online archives
as NY Instrument of Ratification, National Archives.
If convenient, please put its link or pdf download address here.

]
Chase wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to some very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation which created a perpetual union between these states. The Constitution, when it was implemented, only strengthened and perfected this perpetual relationship.[16] Chase wrote:


Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase“ The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[7] ”

After establishing the origin of the nation, Chase next addressed Texas' relationship to that Union. He rejected the notion that Texas had merely created a compact with the other states; rather, he said it had in fact incorporated itself into an already existing indissoluble political body.[16] From the decision:

“ When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[7] ”

For these reasons, Texas had never been outside the Union and any state actions taken to declare secession or implement the Ordinance of Secession were null and void. The rights of the state itself, as well as the rights of Texans as citizens of the United States remained unimpaired.[16] From the decision:

“ Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.[7] ”

However, the state's suspension of the prewar government did require the United States to put down the rebellion and reestablish the proper relationship between Texas and the federal government. These obligations were created by the Constitution in its grant of the power to suppress insurrections and the responsibility to insure for every state a republican form of government.[16] From the decision:

“ The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former.[

In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court decided that the Union was indissoluble once formed, and that states had no right to secede, and that the whole Confederacy was illegal.

oristar, you realize, I hope, that David, true to his background as an ex-trial lawyer,
slants his presentation to only present, twisted though they may be,
things that favor his client (or point of view in this case).

He neglects to mention that the Supreme Court has disagreed with him and his projection of his views onto the Constitution, as if they were what the Constitution actually holds, since more than a century ago.

In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court decided that the Union was indissoluble once formed, and that states had no right to secede, and that the whole Confederacy was illegal.

The CSA has not retained my professional services.

You.only have one issue ad nausea m

00/04/17 New York Instrument of Ratification of the Constitution
Record Group 11, The National Archives, Washington, DC

" That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people
whensoever it shall become necessary to their happinesss ....

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms;
that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People
capable of bearing Arms,
is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of
War, Rebellion or Insurrection."
THEN: Be it known that We the People of the State of New York, Incorporated in
statehood under the Authority of The Constitution of the United States of America
by the New York Instrument of Ratification, thus are graced by the
full benefits and liberties predicated under that document;
or we are made and held captive under Unlawful Powers
to which Under God we cannot, must not, and do not submit." [All emfasis has been added by David]


David

The cite was to the National Archives.
Presumably, it shud also be somewhere in the Library of Congress.



David

The cite was to the National Archives.
Presumably, it shud also be somewhere in the Library of Congress.



David

Would you like to provide more information about the backgroud
of New York Instrument of Ratification of the Constitution, Dave?

It seems that New York State complementarily [???]
and finally admitted the indissoluble and sacred nature of the United States,

which is why New York State joined the Union Army against the Confederacy

(" New York was the most populous state in the Union during the Civil War,
and provided more troops to the Union Army than any other state").

In doing so, they were not unaware of their own Instrument of Ratification.
I believe it is most likely their understanding of the Union got improved
after having signed the instrument.