Short Note to French "inhabitants"

[palani]

I am given to understand that treaties override the Constitution. Here is a good one for those of us born west of the Mississippi and east of Spanish territory. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyame...iana/text.html
Article III of the Louisiana Purchase

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.

Of course the concept of "citizen of the United States" was of a transient nature until state citizenship was achieved. That is until the 14th amendment changed the relationship between states and the federal government.

The use of the word shall strongly implies that this is a mandate on the inhabitant and that there is nothing voluntary about the condition. Things that are not voluntary hint of slavery (no free choice).

This might be a good cite to remember for any ex-patriots born in French territory.

[palani]

Sure seems like the q'loosers group are silent on this issue.

Vattel has a definition of 'inhabitant' as

Originally Posted by Vattel

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

Bouvier has a more detailed description

Originally Posted by Bouvier

INHABITANT. One who has his domicil in a place is an inhabitant of that place; one who has an actual fixed residence in a place.

2. A mere intention to remove to a place will not make a man an inhabitant of such place, although as a sign of such intention he may have sent his wife and children to reside there. 1 Ashm. R. 126. Nor will his intention to quit his residence, unless consummated, deprive him of his right as an inhabitant. 1 Dall. 480. Vide 10 Ves. 339; 14 Vin. Ab. 420; 1 Phil. Ev. Index, h. t.; Const. of Mass., part 2, c. 1, s. 2, a. 1; Kyd on Corp. 321; Anal. des Pand. de Poth. mot Habitans; Poth. Pand. lib. 50, t. 1, s. 2; 6 Adolph. & Ell. 153; 33 Eng. Common Law Rep. 31.

3. The inhabitants of the United States may be classed into, 1. Those born within the country; and, 2. Those born out of it.

4. - 1. The natives consist, 1st. Of white persons, and these are all citizens of the United States, unless they have lost that right. 2d. Of the aborigines, and these are not in general, citizens of the United States nor do they possess any political power. 3d. Of negroes, or descendants of the African race, and these generally possess no political authority whatever, not being able to vote, nor to hold any office. 4th. Of the children of foreign ambassadors, who are citizens or subjects as their fathers are or were at the time of their birth.

5. - 2. Persons born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, are, 1st. children of citizens of the United States, or of persons who have been such; they are citizens of the United States, provided the father of such children shall have resided within the same. Act of Congress of April 14, 1802, 4. 2d. Persons who were in the country at the time of the adoption of the constitution; these have all the rights of citizens. 3d. Persons who have become naturalized under the laws of any state before the passage of any law on the subject of naturalization by Congress, or who have become naturalized under the acts of congress, are citizens of the United States, and entitled to vote for all officers who are elected by citizens, and to hold any office except those of president and vice-president of the United States. 4th. Children of naturalized citizens, who were under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parent's being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizen-ship, are, if then dwelling in the United States, considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to the same rights as their respective fathers. 5th. Persons who resided in a territory which was annexed to the United States by treaty, and the territory became a state; as, for example, a person who, born in France, moved to Louisiana in 1806, and settled there, and remained in the territory until it was admitted as a state, it was held, that although not naturalized under the acts of congress, he was a citizen of the United States. Deshois' Case, 2 Mart. Lo. R. 185. 6th. Aliens or foreigners, who have never been naturalized, and these are not citizens of the United States, nor entitled to any political rights whatever. See Alien; Body politic; Citizen; Domicil; Naturalization.

Understand, Gentle Reader, that the United States citizen discussed in this thread is not the same as the newer definition that resulted in 1868 by the 14th amendment.

{Nothing herein is to be considered legal advice or recommendation - for re-presentation of alternative truthes consult an attorner or mystic}

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by palani

This might be a good cite to remember for any ex-patriots born in French territory.

Yes, by all means...if you can find someone who was alive in 1804, when the Louisiana Purchase took place, this could be highly relevant.

In other words, talk about a hare-brained notion.

In any event, treaties don't override the Constitution. The Constitution is always supreme. Any other source of federal law...treaty, statute, regulation, etc....which is deemed to be in conflict with the Constitution must yield.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

In any event, [b]treaties don't override the Constitution. The Constitution is always supreme. Any other source of federal law...treaty, statute, regulation, etc....which is deemed to be in conflict with the Constitution must yield.

According to puppydogs own words above, the judge-made law would be included in the category of "Any other source of federal law...".

Now here is the big question. WHO is it that makes the distinction as to whether or not a particular "federal law...treaty, statute, regulation, etc" is to be construed as being "in conflict with the Constitution"?

Jerry Carlos

[KarenM]

That judgment can be made at several different levels of federal courts, but the ultimate artibor is the Supreme Court.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Yes, by all means...if you can find someone who was alive in 1804, when the Louisiana Purchase took place, this could be highly relevant.

That is funny. I always though law was an exact art. Seems to me they would have specified currently living inhabitants if that is what they meant. Since when did the definition of inhabitant change to "someone who was alive in 1804"? Possibly you can show me where 1804 is a significant date for the definition of inhabitant. Bouvier seems to recognize the existence of inhabitants in 1856.

Once a territory becomes a state do inhabitants cease to exist? If so they become .... what?

Originally Posted by Lawdog

In any event, treaties don't override the Constitution. The Constitution is always supreme. Any other source of federal law...treaty, statute, regulation, etc....which is deemed to be in conflict with the Constitution must yield.

More obfuscation. The constitution did not apply to the territory puchased from the French. The treaty was between the District of Columbia and the French and was outside the constitution (with the possible exception of the promises made in the treaty).

The executive and legislative branches are capable of freelancing on their own when they spot a buying opportunity. Certainly this activity is not constitutionally ordained but it is not prohibited either.

If you hire a contractor to put a new roof on your house do you object when he bids additional jobs in the area? He might even bring prospective clients around to your house as a marketing pitch to gain more business. I seriously doubt if you would write a clause in the contract prohibiting this activity.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by KarenM

That judgment can be made at several different levels of federal courts, but the ultimate artibor is the Supreme Court.

Correct. The federal courts make the determination as to which statutes and other souces of law are constitutional and which are not. As the Supreme Court itself said in Marbury v. Madison (1803):

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

- 5 U.S. 137 at 177-178

They used to teach this in basic high school civics...that the courts interpret the law. How far we have fallen.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Correct. The federal courts make the determination as to which statutes and other souces of law are constitutional and which are not. As the Supreme Court itself said in Marbury v. Madison (1803):
- 5 U.S. 137 at 177-178
They used to teach this in basic high school civics...that the courts interpret the law. How far we have fallen.

There is more entropy in your omissions than your statements. So we are in agreement that

I. The Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of laws.

II. The Treaty of Cession identifed as the Louisiana Purchase is not of consitutional limitation as it predates the application of the constitution to the area specified (west of the Mississippi).

III. As a treaty the Louisana Purchase stipulates the relationship between the District of Columbia (the United States), the French Republic and the inhabitants of said territory.

IV. The relationship established by item III and the fact that it pre-dates the application of the constitution to this territory means that this treaty is in full force and effect to this day.

If you do not believe this is true then on what basis were land patents originally issued after statehood was achieved?

[palani]

Originally Posted by Treaty of Cession

The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States ...

Interesting language here. The Union of the United States is a union of States. Here you have a statement that permits individuals (inhabitants) to be admitted to the union on an equal footing with the original 13 countries that formed the United States. Each would consist of a body politic of one.

I see no constitutional limitation that stipulates the size of new states admitted to the Union.

You don't suppose that is what the French intended?

Anyone want diplomatic plates for their cars?

[palani]

Originally Posted by KarenM

That judgment can be made at several different levels of federal courts, but the ultimate artibor is the Supreme Court.

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?