Time: Thu Aug 07 18:30:33 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA26159;
	Thu, 7 Aug 1997 18:30:51 -0700 (MST)
	by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA07179;
	Thu, 7 Aug 1997 18:29:51 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 18:28:48 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Who "signed" the Constitution?

Dear Beverly,

Thank you for this important historical note.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding this
entire message to all clients of the Supreme
Law School.  We all appreciate your important
contribution here.

Many tanks, once again!!

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com

<snip>
>
>From: Beverly Kennedy <beverly@flash.net>
>Subject: Re: SLS:  Who "signed" the Constitution?
>
>At 05:39 PM 8/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>The states, under the Articles of Confederation,
>>"signed" the U.S. Constitution, and they had
>>standing to do so, under the Declaration of
>>Independence.  
>
>   But it was NOT the state legislatures that ratified the current
>U.S. Constitution.  The delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787,
>who debated the pros and cons of every article and came up with the
>various provisions and compromises, knew that the only way it would
>have the support necessary for its implementation was to get 
>ratification directly by the people - the people had to support it, 
>or it would have no force.  They set up a procedure for special 
>ratifying conventions in each state for this purpose - separate from 
>the state legislatures.
>
>  The records from this convention are available on the internet, at
>Yale University - the "Avalon Project."  
>              http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm
>              Go to 18th Century - and find "Madison's notes on..."
>I have my own copy of those records, but was thrilled when Madison's 
>notes from the convention was put up for all.  Now everyone can find 
>out the truth - it's well worth the reading, shows what the various 
>competing interests were, how they came to the compromises that could 
>be lived with, etc.
>
>  Beverly
>
>>They are the Real Parties of
>>Interest to that compact.  See Article VII,
>>and the record of state ratifications.  Don't
>>forget, there was a Congress under the Articles,
>>and the states were fully functioning sovereign
>>governments;  that was the legal effect, in 
>>international law, of severing their political
>>relationship to the King of England.  The language
>>which Thomas Jefferson used in that Declaration 
>>was legally sufficient to render the several
>>states as Sovereign, Free, Independent nations --
>>able thereby "to do all other Acts and Things 
>>which Independent States may of right do."
>>
>>"And for the support of this Declaration, 
>>with a firm reliance on the protection of
>>Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
>>other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred 
>>Honor."
>>
>>Amen.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://www.supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>At 07:20 PM 8/6/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>>
>>>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>>>
>>>>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>>>>
>>>>Evan Soule wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>>>>>
>>>>> >The Constitution was 'ordained' to last for millennium.  Its concepts
>>>>> >     provided for all future changes which could be made by man, inas-
>>>>> >     much as the concepts were taken from God's Own plans for the well-
>>>>> >     being for humankind.  Too many believe, and this is the source of
>>>>> >     trouble for this nation (and world), that because the founding
>>>>> >     fathers established and ordained the Constitution for the people
>>>>> >     (themselves) that it was wrong because it failed to provide a
perm-
>>>>> >     anent welfare system which would sustain half of the population
for
>>>>> >     the mere 'privilege' of existing; whose existence would be
extract-
>>>>> >     ed from the purses of those who did the planning and execution of
>>>>> >     the tasks necessary to build a new world.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It is true that those who formed and signed that document were landown-
>>>>> >     ers and shrewd businessmen, but from what other group of people
>>>>> >     can possibly be drawn a platform for success?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >                                        Ray Earnest
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Ray:
>>>>>
>>>>> No one "signed" the Constitution.  It was a "committee" document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recommended interesting reading:
>>>>>
>>>>> "NO TREASON: The Constitution of No Authority" by Lydander Spooner.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evan Soule'
>>>>>
>>>>> -> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>>>>> ->  Posted by: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
>>>>
>>>>Dear Evan, please look up the word 'sign', 'signed', etc. and then get
>>>>     back to me if you so please.  What you mean is that noone 'inked'
>>>>     the Constitution.  A nod of the head would 'sign' (approve) some-
>>>>     thing.  While not perfect, I majored in English in college, and my
>>>>     errors stem from haste, not lack of knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>                                        Ray Earnest
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Ray,
>>>
>>>Since there has been a discussion of the distinctions between the
>>>Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it is within such a
>>>context that the word "signed" has significance.  Obviously, the names
>>>affixed to the former document were signed by those who "pledged their
>>>lives, fortunes, sacred honor..." while the latter committee document
>>>contains the names of those whose attendance (and presumed agreement) was
>>>recorded by the secretary.
>>>
>>>I certainly have great respect and admiration for someone like John Hancock
>>>who signed (inked) his name large enough to be clearly read -- these men
>>>were proud to physically sign (ink) their personal names (signatures) upon
>>>that masterful document and they knew the risk they were taking.  [That
>>>same level of risk was not the case with those whose names were affixed to
>>>the bottom of the Constitution by the recording secretary.]  I have nothing
>>>but total respect for the Declaration of Independence -- in large measure
>>>the product of one man's mind.  I'm afraid that (but for the Bill of
>>>Rights) I don't have the same level of respect for the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>
>>>Evan Soule'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>>>->  Posted by: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>========================================================================
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
>>
>>tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
>>email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
>>website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
>>             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
>>             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
>>
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
>>========================================================================
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>>
>                                ________________________
>        "Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly 
>does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing
opinion 
>on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the
collision 
>of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being 
>supplied."   
>                     ---- John Stuart Mill from his treatise 'On Liberty'
>                                ________________________
>                              
>
>
>
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail