The Constitution, the Civil War,
and International Tresspassing
Thursday, May 4, 2006
By David Yeagley
The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought over the issue of states rights. Whatever the reasons cited as to what brought the issue to a national crisis, the war was fought by the North to preserve the union, and by the South to preserve states rights. An ideological crisis it was, indeed. The country was forever affected. The federal government emerged with an authority and power it never had before, and many people today believe it was never intended to have. One thing is certain, the Republican Party of today claims to advocate smaller government, and the Democratic Party larger government, and the fact is, the federal government has grown continually larger, no matter who is in office.
Obviously, the United States wouldn't be the country it is, had the South become an independent, second country. There would have been two very different countries. Both, however, would have to deal with the racially-based labor arrangements, one way or another. With inventions like Eli Whitney's cottin gin, the agricultural industry saw major advancements. The very modes of labor were changing. The labor force would have to change in the process. This is the pattern whenever technology advances. Labor is affected. Man is replaced by machine, and man must find other occupations. If the Civil War can be understood as a conflict over labor issues, the war can be seen in a way that may shed Constitutional light on todays labor problems, chiefly as they involved the mass, international tresspassing commonly mis-labled as "immigration."
Mexicanos, in Las Vegas, protesting American anti-immigration border monitors.
The Mexicans screamed out, "Racists, go home!" to the Americans! The blindness of
arrogance leads to veryfoolish behavior. The Mexicanos are truly blind, and truly
foolish. But they are certainly smarter than Congress at this point. Thay are smarter
than state governments.
At the end of the Civil War, Congress passed the 13th Amendment (Section 1):
Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist withint the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
This amendment obviously has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or national origin. It clearly allows for the social mechanism or institution of slavery with respect to criminals and their employment. Today, we assign criminals to prison, and a life of general inactivity. According to the U.S. Constitution, they could all be working. The 13th Amendment does not specify the duration of this servitude, nor the nature of the labor, nor its fiscal relation to the criminal sentence.
Add to this, Article 1, Section 9:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
States have the right to defend themselves if invaded. What might comprise such a circumstance? Massive, international tresspassing, as in the case of the Mexican invasion. Today, this would apply principally to the states which comprise the southwestern land borders of the United States: California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
Now, the mountains of legal precedence and judicial tradition in interpreting these Constitutional statutes have obviously belied a purpose counter to the obvious intent of the statutes. Lawyers and judges have completely obfuscated the clarion intent of the foremost legal precedent, the Constitution itself. The precendents of the legal profession have been apparenty askew from the start, and have progressively morphed further and further from the original meaning of the Constitution. (So now we know why Shakespeare put in Butcher's words the first notion of national reform, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." King Henry VI, Part II, Act IV Scene 2.)
Now, prior to the Civil War, in fact, from the time of the Constitution (1787), the matter of immigrant labor was addressed. Again, from Article 1, Section 9:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Congress gave the states approximately 20 years more of free importation of labor. While it isn't exactly clear what would have, in those days, constituted "migration" in terms of labor force, the intent is that in 20 years, Congress would have the right to tax the owners of that foreign labor. (Note: "migration" cannot suggest that African persons came to work in America of their own free will, could it? Who might comprise this "migration" element? That is perhaps an important historical question--with pertinence to the present times.)
Since the Civil War, however, as evident in today's massive Mexican tresspassing spree, Congress has interfered with the states rights to disallow migrating labor or imported labor (as the state "shall think proper"), as well as neglected to tax any owners of such labor.
It is almost as if we are living in a different country than that prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. The words seem plain and simple. Yet, the 'laws of the land,' from the federal level down to the state level, seem to have obscured the intent and spirit of the Constitution. Perhaps with was inevitable, in time. In his discussion of democracies with constitutions, Aristotle (384-322 BC) said, "Where the laws are not sovereign, there you find demagogues." He then describes the rule of the people that develops, which supercedes the very laws their democracy was founded on. The people follow the demogogue, through logistical convenience. The people, through the demagogue, rule over the laws. The Politics, Bk. IV, ch.2. (Sinclair trans. Internet link is Jowett trans. Sinclair uses the word "consitution," while Jowett uses the word "government.")
Perhaps something like this has developed in America. We the people, preoccupied in the revels of freedom, have left management to others. Free elections, free campaigns, have developed grand talkers, social swindlers, and other knaves, and through them, the people have been led to transgress the laws of the Constitution.
One thing is certain: the Mexican problem is unprecedended. It is not about immigration. It is about massive, international tresspassing. That is the nature of the event. It is an illegal "migration." However, if it is the result of Americans hiring the labor, then the states first have the right to end it, or limit it. Then Congress has the right to tax the owners of the labor, that is, the Americans that hire the labor.
There is no other application of the United States Constitution. Without this, we are in chaos, which is what we all see before us. States are exercising no authority but to prevent American citizens from protecting their private property, or to prevent American citizens from protecting Americas borders.
More to come on legal slavery and indentured servitude as they relate to the crime of international tresspassing.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
,
II
