Hot answers tagged

18

tl;dr: Common Law, inherited from Britain, says you're a citizen by right of birth or parentage... but a citizen of what? The principles of the US revolution imply your first obligation is to your society (ie. the people of your state). When your state changes its allegiance, so do you. An analogy can be drawn to if your state rewrites its constitution: the ...


12

Basically, the Pseudohistory Channel or whoever you heard this from is simply wrong. Rather than a gold standard, the framers of the US Constitution tried to introduce a bimetallic standard - that is, a monetary standard based on both gold and silver. The Constitution states: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters ...


12

Comparing just to the Constitution of the Netherlands, that of Belgium was for a Unitary State with no substantial body of Common Law and tradition, while that of The Netherlands was for a Federal State, with a substantial body of Common Law and Tradition. Further part of the motive for the separation of Belgium from Netherlands in 1831 had been a feeling ...


11

Short answer - There were no federal legal prohibitions against weapon ownership in 1789. Long answer. During that year the "United States" had at least 14 governments. For the first two months of the year, the territory was governed by the Articles of Confederation. I haven't reviewed all of the legal precedents under the AoC, but I'm willing to bet my ...


8

Male citizens over the age of 25 were eligible to vote, except for members of the Imperial Army or Navy and the Imperial family. Originally, suffrage was limited to only those who had paid 15 yen in taxes. This initially meant that rural landowners dominated the franchise. However, the tax restriction was reduced to 10 yen and then 3 yen, and eventually ...


7

They were referring to the unwritten constitution of the British Empire. Magna Carta was only a part of that. Without commenting on its legality, validity or morality, the argument was that Parliament could not extract money from the colonies without their consent. The constitutional principle involved being, of course, that of taxation without ...


7

Such concern likely existed, and there is evidence of some cursory discussion to that effect during the proceedings of the Continental Congress. The rationale for creating a federal district with sole jurisdiction of the Congress was probably laid out best (among the surviving documents) by James Madison: The indispensable necessity of complete authority ...


7

There are too many examples of this kind. Secession of the USA from Great Britain American civil war Civil war in Russia in 1918-1922, particularly, secessions of Ukraine, Georgia and other territories. Dessolution of the USSR, particularly secessions of the Baltic republics, as well as Russian SFSR itself. Secession of Chechen republic from Russia. ...


6

You essentially have it correct. The Constitution says: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and ...


6

Fairly early in the war Lincoln (actually one of his generals, but he endorsed the measure) took the position that human "property" in a rebellious state could be confiscated by Federal forces upon command, essentially as spoils of war. If the Federal government chose to employ these slaves as labor to help the army, or free them, that was the Federal ...


5

Fairly simply, the Federalists had a majority in both houses of Congress at the time, and held the Presidency. So they had the power to do it. They were suffering withering attacks from Jefferson and Madison's newly organized Democratic-Republican Party, which had just run its first presidential campaign in the previous cycle, and had developed its own ...


5

It was replaced under Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which stated: [T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be ...


4

I'm hardly a Mexican legal expert. However, the Constitutional article you state (the first can be ignored, as that Constitution isn't in effect any more) seems to say that your right to keep guns in your own home can only be restricted by Federal authorities (not state or local authorities). However, there's no limit placed on how restrictive the Federal ...


4

There are several safeguards against the Chancellor - or any other part of the government - acquiring too great powers. mart already mentioned Article 1, ang Gangnus mentioned the direct applicability, namely, Article 3. The core meaning of the first articles is: Human dignity is inviolable. The state should do everything in its power to honor and protect ...


4

Short Answer: No, the colonists were not referring to a specific document. The colonists were referring to the fact that they believed it was beyond the powers of Parliament to tax them because the colonists did not have representation in Parliament. Long Answer: The American colonists were not referring to a specific document like the Magna Carta, or any ...


4

Before making statements about the US Constitution, I suggest reading it. The original Constitution said nothing about who does or who does not have the right to vote. Voting standards during the colonial and immediate post-colonial period were the same as those in Britain, which operated on a simple principle: whoever paid taxes was entitled to a single ...


4

The article you cite is muslim propaganda which uses the term "constitution" borrowed from the Constitution of the United States to try to legitimize Islamic traditions in modern terms. The use of this so-called "constitution of Medina" is purely modern and has no historical usage at all. Originally, the document referred to was called a "treaty". It was not ...


4

In 1788, residents of the thirteen colonies would have been citizens of their state. The Constitution didn't go into effect until 1789. Furthermore, since the Constitution was ratified by the citizens of each state, not by the states, residents were citizens. (several states tried to have the Constitution ratified by the state government; that was not ...


3

Fascinating question. Revocation of voting rights of convicted Criminals is based on "civil death", which is explained further at PROCON. British common law gave the government the right to revoke voting rights. I'm not aware of the framers explicitly addressing the issue, but they did discuss a more democratic franchise. My recollection is that they ...


3

I can offer some points of the constitution that I remebember beeing implemented esp. as a safeguard: "Human dignity shall be inviolable" (1.1 here) - is the first article, and is meant as a safeguard against legal torture, inhuman punishment and the like No use of the army in the interior Separation of police and secret services "The privacy of ...


3

Henry Adams' History of the United States of America During the First Administration of Thomas Jefferson explains the developments e.g. in the following excerpt (pp. 80). In short, it seems that Jefferson was "just" being pragmatic in a matter that he deemed important for the nation and for his party. ... the President, according to his letters, had ...


3

The events were written down by Ibn Ishaq, who unusually for historians of this time actually would write down who his sources were. From New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina by W. N. Arafat, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (1976), pp. 100-107: Ibn Ishaq sets out his direct sources as he opens ...


2

2001-2008 was not a time of rebellion and danger of public health and safety. The arguments of the court can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush#Opinion_of_the_Court He was not acquitted of his charges, as he was never charged with anything. (That's the whole point, if he had been arrested and charged with something, his habeas ...


2

In 1984, an Austrian artist declared the Republic of Kugelmugel (about 8 m in diameter and situated right in the Austrian capital Vienna). He pulled a stunt by printing and publishing his own stamps and ran into expected and some unexpected troubles with various authorities accordingly. His republic was doomed as a sovereign entity among nations, but he ...


2

The minutes of the Constitutional Convention were suppressed; the participants agreed to never reveal what was said. Some people took notes, and some have survived. The best source is probably the Federalist papers, closely followed by the notes taken at the state ratifying conventions. More than one representative opposed enumeration of rights. The ...


2

It probably will surprise few people to see me say that rather a lot of the US history taught to US students in grade school is false. However, what may come as a surprise to some here is that the story about The Great Compromise being a battle between small states and large states may actually be one of those things. However, this isn't hard at all to ...


2

The most on point case for what it means to be a natural born citizen is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (full opinion found at Justia). The opinion itself is a great read on the issue, and one that covers the development of the theory in considerable depth. Discussed in the opinion are the facts that the US recognizes natural born citizens to be both jus soli (right ...


2

From the Congressional Research Service: "Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent....would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth". I think that they ...


2

My first thought was that the legislative session for each one of these states ended right before July 1, however, a look at the National Conference of State Legislature's website showed that the legislature in each state adjourns at a different time, although these times could have been different in the late 60s. What appears most likely is that during the ...


2

The doors were kept open. On motion of Mr. M'KEAN, seconded by Mr. Smilie, — Ordered, That the doors of the Convention be left open during the session. The reasoning doesn't seem to be recorded in my source, http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_pa.htm Evidently the session was a special case, as this is only recorded once, and references to the doors ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible