Short Note to French "inhabitants"

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by palani

I have no argument with your statement but I have no knowledge of an implement called an 'artibor'. Could this be a tool a farmer might use for applying rings to a hogs' nose?

Thank you for so politely calling everyone's attention to a simple typographical error.

The intended word was arbiter.

[palani]

Originally Posted by KarenM

The intended word was arbiter.

Thanks! That is much clearer.

Uhh, ohh. We may still have a problem
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none

In modern usage, an arbiter makes decisions of his own accord and is accountable to no one but himself.

Are you then saying that the supreme court makes decisions of their own accord and are accountable to no one but themselves? How very autocratic! And you subscribe to this principle?

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by palani

Thanks! That is much clearer.

Uhh, ohh. We may still have a problem
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none

Are you then saying that the supreme court makes decisions of their own accord and are accountable to no one but themselves? How very autocratic! And you subscribe to this principle?

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

Main Entry: ar·bi·ter
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English arbitre, from Anglo-French, from Latin arbitr-, arbiter
Date: 14th century
1 : a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
2 : a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>

Your excessive carping as to the meaning of words sounds like you are attempting to emulate a lawyer.

With respect to your question, the Supreme Court does, in fact, make decisions of its own accord. As to accountability, the Justices of the Suipreme Court are, in accordance with Article III, Section 1 of the Constutution, appointed for life and "... shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...". They are answerable for their behavior to the Congress in the sense that they are subject to impeachment and removal from office.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by palani

The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.

(Emphasis mine)

This language clearly indicates that the ceded territories and their inhabitants were to be made part of the United States and subject to its Constitution and laws as soon as possible.

Every part of what was once the Louisiana Purchase is now part of some state of the union. There is no question that the Constitution and laws of the United States apply to these areas that were once French colonial land.

This was merely meant to reiterate that, until the territory in question was fully under control of the United States, and subject to its Constitution and laws, nothing would be done to impair the existing rights of the people who lived there at the time. Hence the use of the phrase "in the mean time."

But all these lands became fully subject to the U.S. Constitution and laws some 200 years ago. So what point are you trying to make, boy?

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

This was merely meant to reiterate that, until the territory in question was fully under control of the United States, and subject to its Constitution and laws, nothing would be done to impair the existing rights of the people who lived there at the time. Hence the use of the phrase "in the mean time."

But all these lands became fully subject to the U.S. Constitution and laws some 200 years ago. So what point are you trying to make, boy?

Two totally different subjects puppydog.

"Fully subject to" and "Fully under control" do NOT have the same meaning. Like little children, who are 'fully subject to' the lawful demands of their parents, those same children are NOT always "fully under control of" the parents.

Jerry Carlos

[trooper2ls]

Louisiana, because of its political history, was originally the only state governed by Civil Law (originally French Napoleonic Law), rather than the Common Law (which we inherited by our English roots in their Common Law.) Thus, they have been slightly different from the other states. But not in all cases.

"Louisiana HAS adopted much of the Uniform Commercial Code, but only piecemeal: Currently, they have adopted the national standard of Articles 1 ,(1990 Revision of Article 3, 1990 amendments to Article 4, Article 4a (funds Transfers), 1995 Revision of Article 5 and 7 ,1994 Revisions of Article 8, and the 2000 Revision of Article 9. They have also repealed the Louisiana Bulk Sales Act which had not been an adoption of, nor in conformity with, Article 6 of the Code, and did not adopt any new provisions relating to Bulk Sales."

Source:
Table of Jurisdictions, Uniform Laws, (California Commercial Code, annotated, 2006 Desktop Edition )

It is the goal of the NWO to have a "Generica" state that spans the globe. Currently industrial society (Generica) reachs to the furthest corners of the globe. But due to the deep cultural and religious differences there are many areas that are not so willing to adopt the new rule in exchange for the benefits.

Rules and regulations generally cannot be imposed on a population without them agreeing to it. Usually there is a "benefit" that comes with the agreements.

An example is motorcycle helmet laws in New York.

"Fact that this section requiring that motorcycle operators or riders wear protective helmets was enacted because of desire to qualify State for federal highway construction funds and that federal government thereafter eliminated requirement of a compulsory helmet law did not render this section invalid." People v. Bennett, 1977, 89 Misc.2d 382, 391 N.Y.S.2d 506.


The state did not have one, but the Feds pressured the government in Albany to enact one by withholding highway construction funds. This is why New York had so many toll roads compared to other states back in the '70's. Since "agreeing" to the requirement that was imposed.. the Fed gave them the funds (benefit).. and subsequently many tolls on roads were lifted .

As of 1994, the Commissioner adopted FMVSS 218. The New York helmet law was thereby rendered unconstitutionally vague and can be challenged on that basis, and removed. (see Washington v. Maxwell , 74 WASH.APP. 688, 878 P.2D 1220 (1994))

So the populus accepting laws from the government is voluntary, but there are many subtle ways that the governments go about getting the consent of the public.

9-1-1 is another example of conditioning. Do you think there would have been resistance to the passage of the "Patriot Act" had it not been for the events that occured on 911? It is always about conditioning the sheeple to believe and think a certain way so they will accept new conditions in exchange for perceived benefits. In the case of the patriot act.. we agreed to more control and regulations because we perceived the benefit of increased "protection" from terrorism from radicals.

The root of conditioning starts when you load up your children into big yellow buses and ship them off to government run schools for training on how to be a "good and upstanding citizen". The parents agree to let the government program their children and the benefit is they get a free baby sitter during weekday hours. Of course anyone who doesn't program their children according to the government adgenda (like the Amish) is labeled a "cult" or "terrorist group" and it victimized and terrorized by the government.. but that is another story for another day and thread.

..J

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

(Emphasis mine)This language clearly indicates that the ceded territories and their inhabitants were to be made part of the United States and subject to its Constitution and laws as soon as possible.

They must have exibited some degree of clairvoyance then. The "subject to" clause did not become effective until 1868 for individuals who volunteered to be "subject to".

Are you sure you are capable of understanding the basic principles upon which this government was formed? I would not care to be accused of attempting to reason with a person of diminished capacity.

Every part of what was once the Louisiana Purchase is now part of some state of the union. There is no question that the Constitution and laws of the United States apply to these areas that were once French colonial land.

If California law does not cover a situation they fall back upon Mexican law because that law pre-existed California. Sounds like a similar situation to me.

But all these lands became fully subject to the U.S. Constitution and laws some 200 years ago. So what point are you trying to make, boy?

Is it the LAND or the PEOPLE who you are trying to make subject? Pick one and stick with it.

The Treaty of Cession is still in effect. Every jot and title. The treaty Article III applies to INHABITANTS of the territory. The treaty Article III has no application to U.S. citizens in the territory. The treaty Article III has no application to donkeys, mountain lions, grizzlys or prairie dogs either. What part of CONTRACT is difficult to perceive, reverent attorner?

[palani]

Originally Posted by KarenM

Your excessive carping as to the meaning of words sounds like you are attempting to emulate a lawyer.

"The sky is blue" - entropy low - knowledge most people know
"the ultimate artibor is the Supreme Court" - entropy high - as artibor is unknown in the English language.

or should I nod my head and pretend to know what you are talking about?

"... shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...". They are answerable for their behavior to the Congress in the sense that they are subject to impeachment and removal from office.

So I wouldn't expect to find one of these fellows in any of the bars I frequent?

[gldskr]

What if the French didn't have absolute title to the land to begin with? Did the French blast the sh!t out of the Indians and annex it out of conquest, or did they procure treaties with them? Doubtful either occurred.

The likely scenario is that the French claimed the land and they had lots of guns, so they must be "sovereign". So a sale of land from an indebted "sovereign" nation is much easier than a conglomeration of treaties from the aboriginals.

The rest, is of course, history as Thomas J. got a good deal on a chunk of real estate for pennies on the dollar. Why let scruples get in the way of a good deal?

gldskr

[palani]

Originally Posted by gldskr

What if the French didn't have absolute title to the land to begin with?

gldskr

Yes indeed. The same principle is exhibited by people who might desire to sell your property at tax lien sales. If anyone is interested I would sell them a quit claim deed to gldskr's house. In it I simply agree to give up any claim I might have on his dwelling. Turns out I most probably have no interest in his house but you would be buying my guarantee that I won't appear in any related court action in the future.

No, the value of the Treaty of Cession is not concerning the LAND. There is no dispute here. The document is simply a quit claim deed and is probably the only reason we aren't bothered with the French anymore.

This was ratified by Congress, with consideration, over time, acting for the District of Columbia rather than constitutionally. The Treaty of Cession guarantees certain rights to INHABITANTS of that LAND. That guarantee is by the District of Columbia rather than the United States. These rights are most certainly also covered by the constitution in addition to many many more rights.

Had any luck enforcing the Bill of Rights lately?