Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: A.J.Armitage
Read my replies 53, 62 and 81 before you make evaluations that you know nothing about. This thread's purpose was to show that the U.S. Constitution deserves serious study so that it will be followed.

For your information, the issue is so serious that it is now being taken to Federal court for resolution, BECAUSE a whole crew of Federal officers have failed to report this serious violation. In the meantime, back at the ranch, a ND state senator has tried to put a Band-aid on it by passing an amendment to the state constitution. It must be corrected at the Federal level, because for the past 112 years North Dakota officers have made decisions and acted under color of state law without authority, and they can be sued personally for violating the civil rights of North Dakota citizens who are also, first and foremost, United States citizens.

86 posted on 12/23/2001 9:38:22 PM PST by expositor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]


To: expositor
The omission of the oath was an innocent error, you say.

The people, state and federal governments all presumed there to be a valid state charter. What harm has actually been done? Who is wronged?

I think the Fed court will be far less doctrinaire about this thing, facilitate an inclusion, and get on to the next item in the docket.

90 posted on 12/23/2001 9:55:20 PM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: expositor
First, if you're going to go accusing me of knowing nothing about what I'm talking about, at least have the sense to GET A CLUE FIRST. Don't say "read all my other inane posts". I DID read them, and, surprising as this may seem to a fanatic like yourself, I just didn't find them convincing. If you're going to talk to me about serious study of the Constitution, TRY DOING SOME FIRST! Don't you get snotty with me, because I can and will thrash anyone over any Constitutional issue you can name.

Now, with that little matter out of the way, would you care to tell me which of the original 13 states had clauses in their constitutions requiring the executive to swear to uphold the Constitution when they ratified the Constitution?

And, tell me exactly which provision of the federal Constitution requires state constitutions to require an oath to uphold the federal Constitution. Not directly requiring the officials to swear the oath, requiring the state constitutions to require it.

113 posted on 12/23/2001 11:05:25 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson