Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View Force the United States to become Constitutional.
8 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2009 - 5:40AM #21
natureboy_the0
Posts: 1,742

Jun 23, 2009 -- 10:57PM, Bodean wrote:


Jun 23, 2009 -- 10:14PM, natureboy_the0 wrote:


Jun 23, 2009 -- 9:34PM, Bodean wrote:


Article 1 Section 2.


Natureboy ... I think you are interpreting the wording incorrectly.


"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."


It is the curse of the double negative.


NO person shall not be 25 .. .means that you must be 25


No person shall not be a resident of their state .. .means you MUST be a resident of the state.


The key in interpretation is the "No person" ...


If you read it as A person shall not be a resident .. you'd be correct.  HOWEVER .... No person shall not be a resident means the opposite .. that is .. you MUST be a resident of your state.


I respect your attempt .. but it is incorrect.


I think this is what coachbob is trying tell you .



I can see how that may be what they intended but it is not what is written.  Because it not what is written, we only have the written text to go by.  I was taking the most obvious approach, the one with the least reasoning, which I still believe should be as I interpret it, but reasoning reveals to us they are not representing the citizens. 


Even if we accept that interpretation of the text, when we read the states shall elect representatives and senators there is still not a place for the parties.  Because we elect a party representative or senator, rather than a citizens' representative or senator, they are not obligated to represent the people, only the wishes of the party.  Therefore, there is still the negative of being a representative of a party which disallows them to be upholding the constitution. 






Quite to the contrary Natureboy ... it is written that:


No person shall not be a resident of their state.   The wording and their intention is the same.


In contrast ... I'm totally with you regarding parties!!!  Further, the Senate was intended to be elected by the state houses, not the people.  Hamilton was adament that a body of intelligent people be present [the Senate] in order to protect the people from their ignorance [who's will is exerted via the House].


George Washington warned against the party system because it destroys the separation of powers that were written into the construct of the government!  As we have today, and as we had with Bush from 2001 to 2006, when the "party" occupies the house, the senate, and the executive, you DESTROY the separation of powerss, as the majorities are all aligned with the party platform.


IMO .. we loved the last 6 years of the Clinton Admin because we had a Republican House and Senate, and he was a Democrat.  There was at least a smidgeon of check and balance to party agenda.



OK Bodean,


Let us look at the statement as written and in the light where the double negative works.  Read them both without the citizenship phrase and you see it.  "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."  The conjunction and is what makes my interpretation correct, for the double negative to work the words who shall not would have to be who is not and the word be has to be deleted to read as follows.   "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who is not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."  So my interpretation is correct and, I believe, their intent was to ensure that all congressman get their instructions from the citizens concerning how to represent them in every aspect of their job, which our cyber communications process allows today. 


Look at what Washington said, "let us raise a standard which only the wise and honest can repair," which suggest the Constitution was written for only the truly wise to use and prevent the party system and greedy from using the military causing this nation to fall back into the condition England was at the time the United States became an independent nation.   Read the whole Declaration of Independence and see doesn't it suggest what I am reading the intent of the constitution.

Are you questioning your beliefs, ask I AM THAT I AM to clarify them!
Elijah Alfred "NatureBoy" Alexander, Jr. presenting SEEDS OF LIFE
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2009 - 8:17AM #22
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

Natureboy ...


"Shall be" ... and "is" are one in the same, with the exception of the tense .. present vs future.


It follows, Shall not be and is not are also the same.


No person shall not be is the future tense of No person is not.


No person is not a citizen means everyone is a citizen.


No person shall not be a citizen means in the future you must be a citizen.


The conjuction "and" connects No person to shall not be in the sentence.


Like I say ... I support constitutionalism, and I'm not trying to be a butt ... but ... the wording is what it is .. and is consistent with the intent that a person be elected from his peers.


I support your position that elected officials in the house should carry the opinion of their constituents to the chamber.  The Senate, on the otherhand, was intended to be a group that represented the STATE Governemnt .. not the people, and was intended to be a check on unbridled ignroance that runs rampant in the public.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2009 - 8:54AM #23
natureboy_the0
Posts: 1,742

Jun 24, 2009 -- 8:17AM, Bodean wrote:


Natureboy ...


"Shall be" ... and "is" are one in the same, with the exception of the tense .. present vs future.


It follows, Shall not be and is not are also the same.


No person shall not be is the future tense of No person is not.


No person is not a citizen means everyone is a citizen.


No person shall not be a citizen means in the future you must be a citizen.


The conjuction "and" connects No person to shall not be in the sentence.


Like I say ... I support constitutionalism, and I'm not trying to be a butt ... but ... the wording is what it is .. and is consistent with the intent that a person be elected from his peers.


I support your position that elected officials in the house should carry the opinion of their constituents to the chamber.  The Senate, on the other hand, was intended to be a group that represented the STATE Government .. not the people, and was intended to be a check on unbridled ignorance that runs rampant in the public.



Responding only to your last paragraph, I am through with the first part.


Yes, that would be the perfect check and balance if the constitution said the state's congress are to elect the senators.  [I have not found that to be the case and intent without worded representation does not matter.]  In that way nothing would be passed without the agreement of every individual government and the people collectively.

Are you questioning your beliefs, ask I AM THAT I AM to clarify them!
Elijah Alfred "NatureBoy" Alexander, Jr. presenting SEEDS OF LIFE
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2009 - 10:03AM #24
TENAC
Posts: 30,170

Jun 24, 2009 -- 8:54AM, natureboy_the0 wrote:


Jun 24, 2009 -- 8:17AM, Bodean wrote:


Natureboy ...


"Shall be" ... and "is" are one in the same, with the exception of the tense .. present vs future.


It follows, Shall not be and is not are also the same.


No person shall not be is the future tense of No person is not.


No person is not a citizen means everyone is a citizen.


No person shall not be a citizen means in the future you must be a citizen.


The conjuction "and" connects No person to shall not be in the sentence.


Like I say ... I support constitutionalism, and I'm not trying to be a butt ... but ... the wording is what it is .. and is consistent with the intent that a person be elected from his peers.


I support your position that elected officials in the house should carry the opinion of their constituents to the chamber.  The Senate, on the other hand, was intended to be a group that represented the STATE Government .. not the people, and was intended to be a check on unbridled ignorance that runs rampant in the public.



Responding only to your last paragraph, I am through with the first part.


Yes, that would be the perfect check and balance if the constitution said the state's congress are to elect the senators.  [I have not found that to be the case and intent without worded representation does not matter.]  In that way nothing would be passed without the agreement of every individual government and the people collectively.




You lost this with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.


It should be repealed.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2009 - 7:11PM #25
natureboy_the0
Posts: 1,742

Jun 24, 2009 -- 10:03AM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 24, 2009 -- 8:54AM, natureboy_the0 wrote:


Jun 24, 2009 -- 8:17AM, Bodean wrote:


Natureboy ...


"Shall be" ... and "is" are one in the same, with the exception of the tense .. present vs future.


It follows, Shall not be and is not are also the same.


No person shall not be is the future tense of No person is not.


No person is not a citizen means everyone is a citizen.


No person shall not be a citizen means in the future you must be a citizen.


The conjuction "and" connects No person to shall not be in the sentence.


Like I say ... I support constitutionalism, and I'm not trying to be a butt ... but ... the wording is what it is .. and is consistent with the intent that a person be elected from his peers.


I support your position that elected officials in the house should carry the opinion of their constituents to the chamber.  The Senate, on the other hand, was intended to be a group that represented the STATE Government .. not the people, and was intended to be a check on unbridled ignorance that runs rampant in the public.



Responding only to your last paragraph, I am through with the first part.


Yes, that would be the perfect check and balance if the constitution said the state's congress are to elect the senators.  [I have not found that to be the case and intent without worded representation does not matter.]  In that way nothing would be passed without the agreement of every individual government and the people collectively.




You lost this with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.


It should be repealed.



Tenac,


How can the reading of Amendment 17, paragraph 2, "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." say I lose?  The state legislature are only to make temporary appointments when a vacancy occur.  That does not say it is to represent the state government.  Paragraph 1 states "...elected by the people thereof..." making temporary filling of vacancies be by the state government until the people fill the vacancy by election.

Are you questioning your beliefs, ask I AM THAT I AM to clarify them!
Elijah Alfred "NatureBoy" Alexander, Jr. presenting SEEDS OF LIFE
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2009 - 7:55PM #26
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,506

 


Nature boy, you need to learn to read and write in English.  Your inability to comprehend English influences your theology, religious doctrine and politics. Coach Bob has already explained it to you.  But typing slowly:  US Constitution  Article I section2, 2nd paragraph:  No person(someone wishing to be a representive)  shall be a Representative who  SHALL HAVE NOT attained the age of twenty five Years( they can be elected before but cannot assume office until the two requirements are met)and been a  citizen for seven years.  And (the subject is NO PERSON who shall not, when elected, ( at the time of election as opposed to the time of assuming office ) be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.    NO in No person is not really functioning a negative but as an adjective describing a  person and opposed to somebody or anybody.

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2009 - 7:03AM #27
natureboy_the0
Posts: 1,742

Jun 24, 2009 -- 7:55PM, Fodaoson wrote:


 


Nature boy, you need to learn to read and write in English.  Your inability to comprehend English influences your theology, religious doctrine and politics. Coach Bob has already explained it to you.  But typing slowly:  US Constitution  Article I section2, 2nd paragraph:  No person(someone wishing to be a representive)  shall be a Representative who  SHALL HAVE NOT attained the age of twenty five Years( they can be elected before but cannot assume office until the two requirements are met)and been a  citizen for seven years.  And (the subject is NO PERSON who shall not, when elected, ( at the time of election as opposed to the time of assuming office ) be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.    NO in No person is not really functioning a negative but as an adjective describing a  person and opposed to somebody or anybody.



You talk like people who have accepted the lie that numbers 1 through 9 are whole numbers although each of those numbers have a negative counter part which, when added to itself will equal the only whole number, Zero.  That is proven every time you count higher than 9.  You say, by he number 10, this is the first whole series of numbers and now we are about to begin the next.  Yet, most man's minds do not realize that is what is being said.


So it is with the supposed double negative, it is not saying what everyone is saying it is, but because of the tradition you will justify the tradition by attempting to eliminate the actual meaning.  Why else has the nation fallen into the hand of corrupt leadership, man in mass accept what those who are power hungry dictates to them because they accept their authority.  I have never accepted authority because it was authority.  Unless they can prove to me, as with the whole numbers above, the logic of their results/decision, I reject it until/unless my independent research proves the probability of their result.  


Now look at Amendment 2, "A well regulated Militia [military], being necessary to the security [defense] of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," and see how, with my insertions, our being in every war since 1900 have been strictly offensive.  WW1 alleged an invasion of the USA through  the United States of Mexico by Germany which they would have not been able to keep supplied and fight England at the same time.  WW 2 we had the Pacific Fleet Headquarter moved to Pearl Harbor so the Japanese could reach it.  Korea had war declared against it for walking out on what the US was presenting to the UN General Assembly.  For Viet Nam we shot 2 torpedoes into our own ship and blamed it on North Viet Nam's bamboo boats which would have been destroyed in the process.  We imploded the World Trade Center Towers and required the Air Force to stand down when the planes veered off course to cause the impact so we could go to Afghanistan, and lied about WMD's in Iraq.  All of that is treason per Article 3 section 3 "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." but Bush [the others are to far past to do anything about] has not been even looked at in that manner. 


We see all of this miss information but are not willing to make this nation live up to its laws?  I can not do it alone, it takes people who want their country to live its laws.  It was Bush who said, "this is a nation of laws, and the laws have to be enforced," yet no one wants to ensure it is done.  


Have it your way, let your love of goods prevent you from protecting the people of these United States and the whole world.  I have presented my case to you, it is time for you to take action as the Declaration of Independence say, get rid of the corruption which do not have the will of the governed at heart.


Elijah, aka NatureBoy



Are you questioning your beliefs, ask I AM THAT I AM to clarify them!
Elijah Alfred "NatureBoy" Alexander, Jr. presenting SEEDS OF LIFE
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook