Posted by New Kid on September 28, 1998 at 02:34:18:
In Reply to: Dyett v. Turner proves there is no 14th amendment [sic] posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 27, 1998 at 23:47:45:
Please excuse my posting here as I am unable to get the webpage to make a new post from my terminal.
Paul you state:
"Trying to extend the Reconstruction Acts
to states of the Union OTHER THAN the 10
mentioned, is even more ludicrous.
A lot of you people who post here, appear to
be overly obsessed with the Civil War. It
ended more than 130 years ago. We have had
many other wars in the intervening years,
including a nuclear war.
I think it is time you recognized that you
are beating on a dead horse."
As to the Reconstruction Acts, this evidence is brought forward to introduce a place of divergence in the operation of "Law" in this country. Most of which, I am sure you are familiar.
It is interesting to me that you make a point with regard to other wars subsequent. This in my mind seems to support rather than defeat my point. Look at what has happened in those "wars". I have posted earlier, Congress's confession and tacit support of a military take over of the nation of Hawaii, which resulted in the military occupation of Hawaii for over 100 years. Of which they brought them into the Union as a State, or STATE, but not as a state. [From those who have researched the issue, they are not really sure in what capacity Hawaii became a member of the Union.] Even after they confessed and offered recognition to the people of the nation of Hawaii, [This offer is evidence of the non-existent mutuality of consent to be governed which is a critical component for citizenship.] they did not withdraw the troops from their soil, as a matter of fact, exactly what is the soil of the sovereign nation of Hawaii is still in question.
Going forward into this last half of the century, At the signing of documents of surrender after WWII, if a true Treaty of Peace has been signed under international law, why was Europe divided up into spoils? Why didn't the occuppying armies leave the soil as required under international law? Another tactic expanded from the Civil War is not signing a treaty of peace. This strategum is in effect in Korea, which only a cease fire was declared in 1950, and continues until this day. Why is this important to review? Because at everyone of these places flies the Federal Flag of War. England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Kuwaitt, Iraq, Japan, Marshall Islands, Korea, Canada, Australia, and until recently Phillipines.
The appearance of Manifest Destiny has now switched modes from flagrant bellum to non-flagrant bellum. If the true definition of U.S. is found at 28 USC 3002. Then this is just "business" expansion of T. Stevens and the corp.
New Kid