SECTION. 9
Clause 1
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
-
In 1788 the United States knew that it had a problem with Slavery. However, it was no so much a problem that it needed to be outlawed; rather that the states which were still importing slaves, might eventually become sufficiently powerful enough by virtue of the children of slaves becoming citizens, that they would dilute the voting power of those states which did not have slavery.
So at this point, Congress decided to place a 12 year moratorium on any kind of limit at law, and chose to reserve the right to charge ten dollars for each Person who have arrived. Presumably this would be borne by migrants of their own accord if they had the means to arrive in the United States voluntarily, but for people who had literally been kidnapped and transported against their will, of course they would not have the means to pay and this would have to be paid by their masters and chattel owners.
Clause 2
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
-
Habeas corpus is a delightful phrase in Latin which means "you should have the body"; which generally means that you can not charge a person with a crime if they are not there. The word "unless" though, is worrisome. Rebellion implies the organized resistance to government authority or its laws or the operations of the of the government; which is so utterly vague that this effectively empowers the United States Government to operate a Star Chamber and convict someone of a crime, provided that they call it a "Rebellion".
Clause 3
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
-
This sounds obvious, right? Don't make a law which imposes penalties to something after the fact, right? Probably. And also, no. Screw this clause in the head with a self-tapping M15 painbolt.
It is this clause that makes me question the legality of convicted under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, under which David Hicks was arrested and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for his involvement in Afghanistan. Quite apart from the fact that the United States detained and arrested a foreign national on foreign soil, then imprisoned a foreign national in a place where legally not all of the United States Constitution applies (thanks to the Insular Cases).
In Hicks' case, he was successfully able to mount a challenge under this very clause because the law under which he was charged did not even exist at the time that his "crimes" were committed.
Clearly the United States can and does pass ex post facto Laws when it wants to; including if it wants to use torture and violate international law (which it does not recognise). I find this horrifying.
[No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.]*
-
Clause 4 seems to imply the ability for the United States Federal Government to be able to impose a Poll Tax. Now given that this was written in 1788 and that the idea of democracy itself was considered dangerous, as well as the idea that only people who owned property were nominally considered to have any kind of lasting interest in the nation (also see JD Vance's comments about childless women, which proves that this kind of sentiment still exists), then the idea of a Poll Tax would not have been repulsive to a very rich and powerful upper class who intended to keep the poors and scum away from anything to do with the running of government.
Clauses 5 & 6
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
-
These two should be considered as a pair because the spirit of the law is the same. The general principle here is that the internal movement of goods and services should be kept tax free, so as to encourage trade and commerce between the several states.
Clause 7
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
-
If I am kind about the consequences of Section 9, Clause 7, they are idiotic. Section 9, Clause 7, is very much a case of: write stupid rules, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
At very least it is kind to suggest that monies should only be Appropriated from Treasury by means of legislation is sensible, but that's it. This clause offers no direction as to how those Appropriations made by Law are to be written; nor or if those Appropriations made by Law can be tacked onto any old piece of legislation that Members of the House and Senators feel like.
In Australia, we saw the mayhem which the stupidity of this clause caused and by the time we got around to writing our own constitution, we saw that the amount of pork barrelling being done by having Appropriations tacked onto bills which had no bearing whatsoever on the relevant law, was stupid squared. The equivalent section in the Australian Constitution ringfences money bills for that those money bill are only for the relevant monies being appropriated.
What makes this clause even more stupid and spins wheels within wheels is that there really isn't a defined budgetary process either. Yes there should be a Profit and Loss Statement but that's no more basic reporting than we expect from any sensible organisation. The result of not defining any sensible budgetary process is that there is no sensible budgetary process. Instead what we get is a wish list which comes from the Office Of The President which is generally ignored, and no less than twelve budget bills which come from the various government departments. These then either pass through the House and Senate as separate bills, or get combined into omnibus bills, which do not even have include any defined number of them.
Speaking as an accountant and someone who reads law for fun, I find this horrifying.
Clause 8
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without
the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
-
To this first part that "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States”, I note that the obvious consequence here is that the United States does not want to hand out titles like 'Sir', 'Lord', 'Baron', and whatnot, including for service to the nation. There was some discussion within the Constitutional Conventions about whether or not titles of profession should be allowed as well; such as 'Doctor', 'Judge" and/or 'Your Honour'. In fact so averse were the delegates at the Constitutional Conventions that they bucked at John Adams' suggestion that the head of state be given any special title at all. It was George Washington himself who was rather fond of the great and noble game of cricket, that he suggested that the head of a cricket club should lend its name to the head of state for the United States; which is why they are called the 'President'.
As for that second part of this clause, it prohibits people who are employed as officers of the United States without the Consent of the Congress from being granted titles or even accepting presents from foreign states. Someone like Dwight Eisenhower could not have become Sir Dwight. This clause also seems to prohibit people employed by the United States Government from accepting "any present"; which might include something as petty as a cup of coffee, from a foreign State, without the Consent of the Congress. Yes this is petty, but the limits of law and the idiocies of law are often found in pin prick cases.
SECTION. 10
Clause 1
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
-
The States here are explicitly banned from own Titles of Nobility but this doesn't stop them from skirting daintily around the letter of the law. There are a few states which extend the honorary military titles of Colonel and Commander; perhaps the most famous example of this is Colonel Harland Sanders, who was awarded the title of Kentucky Colonel, for eleven secret reasons.
Clause 2
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
-
The Union, with its all seeing Eye of Providence, which mostly does not care an iota about what the states do within their own borders, suddenly does watch very very intently when it comes to looking at Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports which pass through various ports. Under the watchful Eye of Providence, if the states want to impose taxes for moving things through the ports, the Union has said here that it wants those taxes.
Clause 3
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.
-
After having just been through the war to throw off the chains of empire, the United States has with this clause decided to chain the states to each other. Presumably the reason why the States are forbidden to keep state armies and navies, are forbidden to enter into Agreements or Compacts with others States is to prevent the states from making war against the Union. This clause in practice, proved to be somewhat useless.
The "War Of Northern Aggression" or rather the "War Of Southern Stupidity", was as a result of thirteen states in the south deciding that they wanted to secede from the Union and form their own nation; which is odd considering that the United States was supposed to be indissoluble. Way way down in the syllabus for Texas v White (1868), in which SCOTUS decided in passing that the then recent war was illegal, relied on this clause that the southern states must have entered into an Agreement and/or Compact with other States; which is why they had Troops and Ships of War with which to engage in War.
The problem with Section 10, Clause 3, is that the Federal Troops and Ships of War, or Planes and Guns and Tanks, or Spacecraft and Rocket Bombs, by virtue of being in existence, must physically exist somewhere. As so very much of law rests upon the pillar hidden in plain sight that whoever controls the most swords wins, as soon as someone is able to gain control of those same swords, they win. The existence of the Confederate States Of America, even for a short time, is a reminder that the law exists for exactly as long as the law exists and that there is a whole heap of civil fidus in operation at all times.
No comments:
Post a Comment