A Forced Excursion

03:47 pm

08:31 pm - Statement before Congress of Justin McGuire, 10, Fullerton, MD on the Federal Marriage Amendment

Hello, I’m Justin McGuire. I’m in the 4th grade at Fullerton Elementary School in Maryland. I’m here with my baby sister, Maya, my mom, Kathy McGuire and my other mom - Whitney Conneally. Some people think that having two moms is bad, but I don’t think so. When I go over to Zack’s or Michael’s house – they have a mom and a dad – I see that they are loved the same way that Mommy and Whit love me.

Whitney cooks most of the time, and I love her food. Mommy helps me with my homework, and makes sure that I have it done before I play video games. Both of my moms used to read to me at night, but now I’m old enough to do it myself. This summer, since my mom has the new baby, I am looking forward to staying home with my new sister, instead of going to day camp every day. But we have to wait and see if Whitney’s job will let Mommy and me onto their insurance. I love my parents and my sister and they love me. I want to spend time with them, like my cousin did when her mom had a baby. I don’t get why some people, like the insurance company, don’t think we are a real family.

Since my sister was born, my moms and me are trying to decide what her last name should be. I want it to be the same as mine, but that would not be fair to Whitney if everybody had the same last name but her. If my moms were married, they could already have the same last name. Then everybody would know we are in the same family. Once Michael’s mom misunderstood and thought Whitney was the nanny.

In school, we are taught a lot of different things – and in social studies class, we’re taught about what makes America great. We learn about freedom, equality and why discrimination is bad. My parents’ say that in America, my sister and I can be whatever we want to be, as long as we are willing to work hard. But some people are saying that just because one of my moms is not a man, that they aren’t real parents and should not be equal, no matter how hard they work. They want to amend the constitution to say that my family legally does not exist. That just doesn’t make sense to me, and it’s sort of disturbing.

Some of my friends, when they first hear about my family, think it’s weird and different. My parents always say, “Different isn’t good or bad. It’s just different.” And once they get to know my family, and me they see that we’re just like them. If my classmates can see that we’re a family, why can’t Congress?

Thank you.

07:06 pm - reply

>>The Constitution does not explicitly allow for or prohibit secession.

An omission is generally interpreted to imply exclusion. Aside from generally failing to include a mode of secession, implying that such was not the intent of all of the original signors, several specific clauses deal with related issues, implying an exclusion.

e.g. A I, S 10, cl. 1: No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; specifically precludes an attempt to bypass the federal government in conducting interstate affairs, and does not include a reservation for secession.

A I, S 10, cl. 3: No state shall without the Consent of Congress keep troops. Given that the ability of states to engage in warfare against foreign national is independently proscribed, this clause can only prevent warfare among states, indicating that states ceded the right to fight one another (or the federal government, see below)

A I, S 2, cl 1: The President shall be Commander . . . of the Militia of the several States. Again, since the President is independently vested with the power to control an army, and the Congress with the power to raise an army, this clause only gives the power to prohibit state exercise of independence.

A IV, S 2, cl 1: Privileges and Immunities clause. Creates a reliance issue; citizens of one state depend on governments of other states’ binding obligations to enforce their rights, thus the Constitution has the states enter into quasi-contractual relationships with one another and with another state’s citizens.

A IV, S 3, cl. 1: Detailed clause proscribing when states can enter the union, when they cannot, and governing the states’ ability to divide themselves into subunits. A detailed clause making no mention of secession implies exclusion.

A V: Ratification. As above, detailed clause for enactment of Constitution, no clause for withdrawal.

A VII: Same.

>>As such if the states had a right to secede before they ratified the Constitution, then they must have retained that right -- unless it were ever expressly abdicated, which it was not.

Not true. The states did not have the right to secede before they ratified the Constitution, the People did. 1) The preamble supports this interpretation, 2) the method of enactment supports this interpretation, and 3) the 2nd Amendment expressly supports this interpretation. If anyone had the ability to secede from the union, it was individual people. Thus, arguably a: a national majority of the population could have revoked the Constitution, or possibly b: the people could have abolished their state governments and re-established as independent countries individually. Not the process followed.

>>A right of secession was clearly established in America, both through the American Revolution and more importantly the secession from the Articles of Confederation. After the Revolution, each state was recognized individually as a sovereign state. So, international law recognized them as sovereign states entering a union which they could leave at any point.

1. The Revolution did not establish precedent for subunits of government succeeding from the national state, it established precedent for individuals who were excluded from the political process to rebel. 2. “International law” did not recognize a right for sovereign states entering a union to leave at any point, because A. the Constitution was a case of first impression. There was NO prior comparable institution to create precedent, and B. The only significant international law that existed prior to 1880 was the doctrine of state sovereignty and humanitarian norms regarding treatment of foreigners.

>>Moreover... and here's the important part... the states retained their right of self-determination through the Articles of Confederation

False. The Articles of Confederation contained a clause providing for amendment, which the Constitution violated in Article VII, cl. 1. The Constitution violated the terms of the Articles of Confederation, and hence cannot be interpreted as incorporating those same terms.

>>and into the Constitution, where Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York explicitly stated as much in their ratifications of the Constitution. If the Constitution did not consent to the right of secession, VA, NY, and RI could NOT have entered the Union via their Constitutional ratifications.

False, but requires a fairly detailed analysis of contract law to explain.
The very short version: Article VII, cl. 2 creates an offer among the states to enter into the Constitution. A VII, cl. 1 governs the terms of that offer. VA, RI, and NY consented with different terms, hence, at common law, they were not accepting the Constitution, They were rejecting the Constitution and proposing a counteroffer, which was never ratified by the requisite 9 states. Thus their “acceptance” is void. The Constitution nonetheless became binding through performance, at which point, under common law, the terms of the original offer govern unless the alternate terms are expressly accepted.

Even shorter version: What VA, NY, and RI did is not law.

>>Sure, you've got Lincoln's nationalist theory as an opposing view... but it's complete crap, incoherent and self-contradictory... so I will not dwell. If further explanation/clarification is required, please ask.

Terms of an agreement should not be interpreted to contradict each other. A 2, S 1, cl. 7 requires the President to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Absent a clear indication in the Constitution governing the process of secession, Lincoln was legally obligated to prevent the states from “enter[ing] into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation,” “law any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports,” or “keep troops.”

Well, that took a while to type. I’ll do ethics later. This was written kind of free association, so forgive typos and possible glaring ommissions. . .

04:58 pm - and the winner is. . .

hahaha you are so lame. YOu should know I NEVER update my journal

01:09 am - work

My work efficiency needs to become sufficiently high and my work product sufficiently valuable such that it is cost effective to outsource the daily tasks required to perpetuate my existence.

These tasks shall be entrusted to a highly-trained monkey butler named JoJo Bean.

11:51 pm - Newsflash!

Adnan would like people to start calling him Ani. Really.

11:50 pm - Nonnewsflash!

Kevin is an ass.

10:43 pm - Newsflash!

Women are expensive. And I am awkward around them.

02:02 am - Ripley

</a></b></a>ripley_the_cat writes by far the most coherent entries I have encountered on LJ.

03:21 pm - Why you shouldn't ask me what I'm thinking

I search for a thought. A pointless, fleeting quest. Worse, a cliché. Criticism is easier than voice. Removing one layer simply makes another appear. Skill, then, merely refreshes and refixes limitations. It’s narcissistic, but merely by reference to others. Words ring hollow against a fictional character who reviews thoughts in intimate details, yet is as foreign as possible. He sits beside me and laughs out: “Your opinions, your writings, and meaningless. Everyone smart has heard it before. You are at best redundant, more likely a crude reflection of the more complete thoughts of others. Why struggle against this burden? Why let it afflict every thought?” A concurrent stream of consciousness runs, sayings that those same words are fit for scoffing; an encompassing inferiority complex driven by egoism. The demon easily responds: "but this too." What I would give for an original creation – the lasting thought noone would have felt without me. Is this the real end of my narcissistic mirror-image? How do I distinguish between the two; a psychiatric flaw where I seek the approval of a fictional other or my own belief in the successfulness of uniqueness; the finality of freedom when I figure out what my constitution can be? In any event, the latter is a vicious cycle, and the former merely insane.