Restorationists vs Conservatives and Libertarians

Did I ever say anything on any thread that deserved a response like that? (other than that time I said Sinkspur was secretly in love with Hillary)

No apology necessary : It's what connect thinks, and her true feelings are my window.

They're wrong. The Constitution says:

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.

The North Dakota state constitution apparently contains nothing contradicting this. Since there's nothing contrary to it, there's nothing repugnant to the Constitution. There's no issue.

I have nothing against lawsuits against longstanding Constitutional violations. I was peripherally involved with one, which unfortunately lost. There just isn't a violation of the Constitution here.

Dear Admin Moderator,

Have you read Fredric Hayek's The Road to Serfdom? Do you even know anything about Fredric Hayek? Hayek is hardly someone any conservative would have much disagreement with. If you don't know who Fredric Hayek is, how about going HERE. The 50 year anniversary edition was forwarded by Milton Friedman, hardly a right-wing wacko, and Hayek has been an inspiration to both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Lest you think I overstated my comments, I suggest you first read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, or check with any of the above, especially Bonaparte, whom I am confident will confirm my knowledge about the subject of the post to which you so blindly object. The chapter on the socialist roots of naziism would be especially helpful in your education.

Before you prejudge any post I make, I suggest you educate yourself about the subject first. I do not make accusations without a solid factual and reasoned foundation.

Did I ever say anything on any thread that deserved a response like that? (other than that time I said Sinkspur was secretly in love with Hillary)

I highly doubt it. And about Sinkspur, you might be on to something...

Have you read the book, especially the the chapter on the socialist roots of naziism? If not, I suggest you read it first. Who is Fredric Hayek, you may ask? Just the author of the 4th most important conservative book of the 20th Century as shown HERE. If you want to argue with anyone, I suggest you take it up with the likes of the web site owner who ranked the books, or Milton Friedman, who wrote the forward to the 50th anniversary edition of The Road to Serfdom, and not me. You might find the chapter on the "Socialist Roots of Naziism" to be most helpful.

I know I digress from the issues solicited in the original post; but since we're on the subject, was it the "..so help me God" part of the oath that G Washington improvised? My memory is unclear; perhaps I'm just misinformed.

It earlier occurred to me that what you say with regard to the conflict in the charters was operant; but I'm no scholor, just a simple guy who wants answers. Yours seems right.

Her?

Sorry.

I've read The Road to Serfdom. I would suppose you think the part about the same ideas in postwar England having existed in Germany in the Weimar Republic and having helped the way for Nazis justifies your remark. It doesn't. He said nothing in support of big government. In fact, he seemed like he would have been open to your position if you had explained it, which makes the fact that you aimed your vitriol at him rather than me odd. I don't support big government either, of course. You keep acting as if you're clearly right, and only opposition to the Constitution itself could make someone disagree; in fact, you're wrong.

And even if he were an advocate of big government, that wouldn't make him morally the same as a defender of Nazis, and nothing in The Road to Serfdom says it would.

I know I digress from the issues solicited in the original post; but since we're on the subject, was it the "..so help me God" part of the oath that G Washington improvised? My memory is unclear; perhaps I'm just misinformed.

Yes.

It earlier occurred to me that what you say with regard to the conflict in the charters was operant; but I'm no scholor, just a simple guy who wants answers. Yours seems right.

Of course it is. :-)

We are NOT talking here about the state constitutions of the original 13 colonies, later states; we are talking about the terms set down by Congress at the particular time that four proposed states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington) were to be considered for admission into the Union, as per the Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, as passed by the U.S. Congress. Congress, you’ll note, in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution has the EXCLUSIVE power to “admit states” and can therefore pose terms for admission according to the exigencies of the period. Section 4 of the above-mentioned Enabling Act sets down the requirement for these specific four proposed states that their consitutional convention delegates meet and write a “state constitution that is not repugnant to the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” The terms of Congress were specific and before admission, each state had to show Congress that it had met the terms as found in this Section 4. As it happened, the people of North Dakota approved of the drafted ND constitution, for no one noticed the “flaw” in the oath of office article. Thereafter, the ND state constitution was submitted to Congress for review and approval. There, too, the “flaw” was not noticed by staff members advising Congress and President Benjamin Harrison as to whether the terms for admission had been met. That’s pretty sloppy isn’t it, when Congress sets down terms and then no one in Congress checks to see if they were met? So, President Benjamin Harrison was erroneously advised that North Dakota’s constitution was in order according to the terms of Congress. Statehood was erroneously proclaimed. The error still exists in the ND Constitution 112 years later.

Now, if you want to get technical, Alaska did not have to submit its state constitution to Congress as per the terms of an Enabling Act. Instead, its people drafted the state constitution and it was submitted to Congress and Congress accepted it. Fine. Congress can do that, according to the exigencies of the time. So the terms of Congress can vary. Understood? But the terms to be followed by North Dakota were not met; therefore North Dakota is not a STATE, it is still a TERRITORY. The people of the previous Dakota Territory, were citizens of the United States. They are still citizens of the United States today, whether the area is distinguished as a territory or state, but according to the terms of Congress itself, North Dakota’s constitution did not meet the terms of Section 4 of the Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889.

But, in 1890, during the very first ND legislative session, the “flaw” was discovered! Chapter 105 (House Bill 234) was passed in March, 1890, but it was only a state law.

The bill said, “Emergency. We have failed to provide for an oath for civil officers, therefore this bill will go into force immediately upon its approval.” Sure, but it was but a state law; the U.S. Congress was NOT advised that the state constitution’s text still read wrong by only giving directions for state officers of the legislative and judicial departments to take the oath of office there stated. They failed to mention that “executive “ officers of state government also had to take the very same oath. The word executive is still, after 112 years omitted from the text of the ND constitution in Article IX, Section 4. What should have been done was to notify Congress of the flaw and, if allowed, draft an amendment to the ND constitution that would have IMMEDIATELY allowed the ND electorate to approve the state constitution amendment so that the ND constitution would be in compliance, and not repugnant, to the U.S. Constitution. ND Century Code 44-01-05 is the state law that provides that civil officers will take the said oath, but it is a state law; the ND constitution text has not been corrected. It must have been embarrassing to have been admitted on Nov. 2, 1889 and to find in only weeks after that the state constitution had a flaw in it. Silence reigned and “a statute of the U.S.”, and Enabling Act providing for admission of a state, was being prevented from its proper enforcement by a conspiracy of silence. For the past 112 years ND officials have been acting without authority. If there is no state, then there can be no state offices; and if there are no state offices, then there can be no state officers. A court ruling states: “there can be no state officers de facto if there are no state offices de jure.”

This covers the basic problem. As it now stands, all ND officials take an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Dakota...” The oath, taken by even judges and attorneys, is contradictory. One cannot support the Constitution of the United States if in the same breath he states that he will also support a “flawed” Constitution of North Dakota, the latter violating the Constitution of the United States.

Why haven’t any number of public officials of North Dakota not come forward and publicly called attention to the flaw? My guess is that they like their cushy jobs; they also don’t want to be the party “blowing the whistel” of an unconstitutional situation that would make them all impostors under the law.

This is in answer to your first question; I can answer the second question as well, but I think this is already getting quite lengthy. If anything, my facts show that there is, as this thread tried to provide, evidence here of great seriousness showing that the U.S. Constitution is not being followed, mainly because of ignorance or neglect or both, all to the detriment of citizens who put their faith in the acts of public officials whom they trusted with the reins of government.

I offer to send you a summary also, if you will provide me with your mailing address in a private reply to me.

Reread my post #110, and the post to which it replied. He/she asked for the motive, in a nutschell, why the government would so easily ignore a serious problem with the constitution for a particular state, and I gave him an answer along with a link for a more detailed and reasoned explanation by Fredric Bastiat. I simply answered his question, yet he seems to want to completely ignore the very answer to the question he asked. This is typical of those who simply do not want to face a simple, but straigh-forward and reasoned response. If you question my answer to his question and are unsatisfied with Bastiat and Hayek, I suggest you simply need to read Chuck Colson's Kingdoms in Conflict, in which you will find the same answer, "POWER".

I would not at this time state that dasboot intentionally has argued a socialist/nazi position regarding the problem with the ND constitution. I suspect that his question may have even been only a pragmatic one based on his'her lack of an understanding of the horrible potential consequences of such an argument, but he'she made it just the same. I maybe should have directly attacked the argument rather than the person making it. For that reason only, an apology may be in order, assuming dasboot's remarks were made in ignorance, which is no great sin. But as for the actual argument itself, my position remains the same.