The Articles of Confederation were a failure! No centralized government.
The USA government, as we basically have it today did not exist during
and after the Revolutionary War. The Constitution did not become the Law
of the USA until 4 March 1789.

The Amendments are written as follows:

Prior to ratification of the Constitution, Amendments 1 through 10 use
the language of 'PEOPLE' [not citizen]. [Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and
10] [Prior to 4 March 1789]

Subsequent to ratification of the Constitution, Amendments 11 through
26, that deal with human, not political or liquor issues, use the
language of 'CITIZENS'. [Amendments 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, and 26]

The 14th amendment, following the US Civil War [9 July 1868],
establishes citizenship definitions as follows:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside." This was originally worded to assure
citizenship to the emancipated slaves. It has since been judicially
interpreted in a broader sense.

In the current passionate discussion of immigration rights we categorize
and pre-judge, by our use of language, a group of people. Are they
'Illegal Immigrants', or, 'Undocumented Workers'? Regarding the law
governing immigration, is it founded on 'per ipse 'wrong or is it
founded on 'Good Order for the maximum common good'. I suspect the
number of immigrants from any nation who may legally immigrate to the
USA is arbitrarily chosen in the US House of Representatives. The quotas
can be easily changed by act of Congress. A case can be made that QUOTA
systems are basically discriminatory.

Regarding the 'oppressive' states, and there are many, the politics of
'Power' and 'Might makes Right' does not ratify the yearning of people
to be FREE. Governments may and do usurp human rights, but that does
make it right! The UN has an Office of Human Rights. The Pope has an
Office of Human Rights. Many governments of Europe have political
entities devoted to Human Rights. There are many NGOs devoted to human
rights. These rights include fundamental human rights, political rights
and social rights.

IMO, secure borders, in a post 9-11 USA environment, cannot be morally
justified based on QUOTAS. And we have quotas for the Mexican
immigrants. How are these quotas justified? [Does the USA authorize
100,000, 500,000 or 1,000,000 immigrants a year? Why is there any
particular number?]

I'm pontificating, I know it! But, I see injustice in any QUOTA system.

/S/ DD, W1MCE

Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 06:23:25 -0400, Dave wrote:


Harbin,

When the USA Constitution was written there was NO government! There was
a group of independent states. No government higher than state
government in existence. All state governments were equal.


Hi Dave,

You are quite wrong. Previous to the ratification of the U.S.
Constitution, we lived under the Articles of Confederation which was a
Republican form of government complete with assembly and President.

The Constitutional Congress was formed to look at the Articles, not
create a new government.

The USA Constitution begins: "We the People..." not "We the citizens..."


The Constitution speaks of citizens of states, but it nowhere provides
for the qualifications of becoming a citizen. However, there is the
3/5ths rule and the untaxed Indians who are implicitly not citizens
(saying nothing of women).


Rights, ALL RIGHTS belong to the people.


There are many in the current administration that would dispute this.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC