US Constitution Series, Article VII

Article VII. RATIFICATION

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

At the time of the original ratification, the Articles of Confederation were in effect. Those Articles required unanimous adoption by the states for an amendment. It seems odd that if they required unanimous approval for adoption that they could be replaced by 3/4 approval by the states (9 out of 13).

What would have happened to the state or states that refused to ratify? Would they be out of the union? Or would the ratifying states say that the non-ratifying states were abound anyway? Historically, all states ratified the constitution by conventions.

Koran Burning Opposed

Your Voice of Reason hereby condemns in the strongest possible terms the proposed Koran burning by the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla. While I would defend to the death the church's right to burn the Koran as a matter of free speech, the proposed act is wrong-headed and unduly provocative. It is insulting to non-radical Muslims as well as the radical.

As Christians, it should be our goal to share the message of Jesus Christ and offer Muslims an alternative to Islam that includes a personal relationship with our Creator. We have a duty to seek conversion, not confrontation. Confrontation will chase Muslims away, not draw them to the truth of God's Word.

The act of provocation may be the exercise of a right, but it is wrong.

Political Commentary in Country Music

When You're Holding a Hammer (Everything Looks Like a Nail)

US Constitution Series, Article VI

Article VI. PRIOR DEBTS, NATIONAL SUPREMACY, OATHS OF OFFICE

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This provision of the Constitution is often cited for providing that the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land" and therefore it cannot be amended or repealed by the states. Of course the Tenth Amendment to the constitution reserves to the states or to the people all powers not granted by the constitution to the United States, unless prohibited by the constitution. More on that when we get to the Tenth Amendment.

This section also says that all state and federal officer and elected officials shall be bound by oath to support this constitution. The word "bound" does not really appear to have any meaning. In the case of federal executive and judicial officers, they may be impeached only for treason and high crimes and misdemeanors. Is violation of the oath of office with respect to supporting the constitution necessarily a high crime or misdemeanor? Will this section support a claim against a state official? Questions, not answers.

There is one reported case in which a taxpayer who had not filed returns claimed that a state income tax assessment was unlawful because the state and municipal employees involved in his audit had not taken an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. In Burdette v. State Dept. of Revenue, 487 So.2d 944 (Ala. Civ. App., 1986), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals said,

The terms "public officer" and "state officer" have been given various meanings by the authorities, See generally § 81A C.J.S. States § 80 (1977); 72 Am.Jur.2d States, Territories, and Dependencies, § 62 (1974); 67 C.J.S. Officers § 8 (1978); 63A Am.Jur.2d Public Officers and Employees § 9 (1984). The key characteristic of each is that an officer, public or state, is invested with some portion of the sovereign power of the state, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. See, e.g., State ex rel. Gray v. King, 395 So.2d 6 (Ala.1981); Lacy v. State, supra. An individual, to be an officer, must exercise his duties in his own right and not by permission and under the supervision and control of another. Jefferson County v. Case, 244 Ala. 56, 12 So.2d 343 (1943). See generally 67 C.J.S. Officers § 10 (1978). A public employee, on the other hand, is not given any part of the sovereign power. Jefferson County v. Case, supra. Applying these criteria to the present case, it is clear to us that the specified individuals are not public or state officers.

Erik Scott's Alleged History of Violence

Erik Scott was the person shot by las Vegas metro police outside a Costco in July. Links here, here, here and here. According to Las Vegas news media, the Metro police are digging into Erik Scott's past.

There are three incidents that, of course have nothing to do with the actual shooting, but may reflect on Scott and perhaps on his reaction to a potentially violent situation.

Scott's first wife Violet filed domestic violence charges against him in Colorado in the late 1990's (divorced 1999) and his second wife made allegations of threats of violent in 2003 divorce filings. Unfortunately, these sorts of allegations in connection with divorce proceedings are all too common and frequently (but not always) are false or exaggerated to gain a tactical advantage in the divorce.

In March 2010, Mr. Scott's neighbor filed a police report claiming that Scott pointed a gun at him. There does not appear to be any charge or court finding upholding the accusation. Mr. Scott's father says that Erik Scott pointed the gun at the dog only after being bitten. (I hate dog cases. Dog owners are frequently totally irrational about their dogs.)

There is an additional report that the coroner's inquest will be televised.

US Constitution Series, Article V

Article V. MODE OF AMENDMENT

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This Article provides for four methods of amending the Constitution:

• 2/3 both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the states' legislatures;
• 2/3 both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of states' conventions;
• national convention plus 3/4 of the states' legislatures; and
• national convention plus 3/4 of the states' conventions.

So far, only one has been used, 2/3 both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the states' legislatures. Political types are scared of the idea of a national convention, because they don't know what wacky things might be proposed. An individual mandate for health insurance coverage, for example. [Heavy sarcasm intended.]

While it clear that a national convention would be called at the request of 2/3 of the states' legislatures, the makeup and credentials for such a convention are unspecified. It is also unspecified how state conventions are to be called or delegates selected. Presumably the legislatures would call them, but what would stop governors from calling their own? Can the federal government pass laws defining these matters? I have not located any Congressional attempt to do so.

There are more questions than answers with any method of amendment other than the one traditionally used. Even so, there are questions with the traditionally employed method, such as how long do the states have to ratify by 3/4? Forever? A reasonable time? A time set by Congress?

Immigration Reform Needed Now!

This weekend, my wife and I visited a Hispanic grocery to obtain the ingredients of a favorite dish. Music was playing and the place was bustling. I was reminded of the positive contributions that Hispanics and particularly Mexicans have brought to the American culture.

The failure of our Federal government to adopt a reasonable and comprehensive immigration policy is a true horror show for people of good will. Immigration of people who want a better life and who want to join our culture should be greatly simplified. Eliminate the "coyotes" that pray on people who simply cannot navigate through the excessive red tape. I am not talking about making it easy for folks who come from cultures that want to kill us. I think the process should discriminate making it admission more rigorous for would be immigrants from Islamic cultures, to weed out likely radicals. But our personal experience with weird, arcane laws for immigration of people with sought-after skills persuades us that the current system is horribly broken.

Immigration is good. Illegal immigration is bad. A system that encourages illegal immigration is stupid. Fix the system.