Horse 3376 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 5

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

-

Either:

- a supermajority of both houses; or

- a supermajority of the States.

call a Convention for a proposed Amendment.

Then, 

Upon ratification of three-quarters of the State Legislatures, the Amendment is passed.

There are so many horribly stupid things wrong with this that this Article demanded its own post, as opposed to Articles 3 & 4 which could Be posted as a single post.

Firstly, unless a proposed Amendment is so amazingly urgent that even the Members of the Congress know that they will lose their jobs if they do not pass it, proposed Amendments either get defeated before they can be approved, or languish for so long that they then get unmade.

The Equal Rights Amendment which was proposed in 1920, which would have and should have given women equal rights under the Constitution, was passed and ratified by enough states to pass but then was unmade before it came to be added, due to states unratifying it and other states being admitted to the Union. Ladies, as it stands under the United States Constitution, we hold this truth to be legally evident, that you are not created equal and are not endowed by the United States Constitution with those same inalienable rights as men.

Secondly, even if a proposed Amendment is unequivocally just, due to the nature of the Members of the Congress being self-interested and selfish and at times actually evil, then it will not pass.

Justice is not a measure by which Amendments are made to the United States Constitution. It is for this reason why Slavery is still technically on the books. It is for this reason that there is still no explicit right to vote and can be denied or abridged on grounds other than the ones prescribed by the various Amendments. There is no right to Life under the United States Constitution. There is no right to Healthcare under the United States Constitution. There is no right to Education under the United States Constitution. Not even FDR with his suggested Second Bill of Rights could force Congress's hand. As far as the United States Constitution, American citizens are functionally garbage who do not have the right to life, liberty, or happiness, or the conditions which promote or allow it. 

Thirdly, even if a proposed Amendment is necessary, due to the nature of the Members of the Congress being self-interested and selfish and at times actually evil, then it will not pass.

An Amendment needs either a supermajority of both houses or a supermajority of the States to call for a Convention and then ratification of three-quarters of the State Legislatures. Anyone who has seen C-SPAN knows that the only things that you can actually get Congress to agree to as a supermajority, are gibberish pieces of nonsense such as renaming Post Offices or Highways and the like; the kinds of things that have no actual impact to people's lives.

When you have people crying out in the streets, Congress can and will argue and refuse to agree to even the most petty of things. It someone proposed that Congress were to make a hero sandwich, then I am sure that Congress would fail to agree to pass the sandwich. Some on the touchy-feely libertarian left would want alfalfa and cress, while those on the gun-totin' all shootin' authoritarian right want raw elephant meat with the blood still dripping down the sides. The boring sensible centre-right who just want roast beef and the equally boring centre left who want tomato and cheese, have to sit around and wait while every position becomes an extreme version of itself; where the opposition is worse than Hitler, or worse than Stalin, and where everyone is pro-anti-super-crypto-based-cringe-psyop-identikitist.

Fourthly, assuming that you do manage to cobble together some kind of coalition of the willing, the method of Ratification is still dependent upon the approval of the Congress. We have already seen in those first three objections that the self-interest by the Members of Congress is antithetic to the approval process. Article 5 then empowers that antithesis by placing the power to change the decision for the method of Ratification into those same self-interested persons.'

My objection here is that the Constitution here, embeds a conflict of interest. From any kind of logical perspective, that is just bad law. Worse, that is bad law which sits as the central plank of the rule of law in the nation. 

Fifthly, the fact that the method of changing the Constitution is so arcane and labyrinthine, it means that things which should not be rights, such as the right to bear arms, stay on the books and then become the object of idol worship because they are in the Constitution. 

If you have a thing which actively endangers domestic Tranquility, the common defence, the general Welfare, and slashes and burns the Blessings of Liberty, then I do not care whether or not it is a right because the Constitution says so. Both the people defending something that gives rise to death, and the right itself are objectively evil. 

Sixthly, is the undemocratic mode of operation of this Article. Unlike a referendum in Australia which is the way that the Australian Constitution is changed, there is not referral to the People of the United States if the United States Constitution is to be changed. The requirement that there be a majority of voters and in a majority of states in Australia looks similar, but that supermajority of both houses, and the supermajority of the States is not any kind of referral to the people at all.

It seems pretty fundamental to me, that the supreme law of the land and the prime rule by which all the other rules must stand by, should be referred to the people who have to live under it. Yet again I refer to the Declaration of Independence in which Jefferson stated that governments only justly derive their power from the "consent of the governed". Article 5 makes no attempt to confer with the people whatsoever; so I have no idea why it pretends to have the "consent of the governed".

One objection is a check light. Two objections is a waving red flag. Three objections is red lights and sirens time. SIX objections aught to be enough to let someone inside the house know that the house is on fire.

Horse 3375 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Articles 3 And 4

Article. III.

SECTION. 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

-

The United States Constitution, unlike the condition by which Members of the House or Senate are appointed, and unlike the offices of the President, imposes no such boundary upon any kind of term limit or any other bound limit upon Supreme Court Justices. A Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed by the President in cahoots with a Senate which whom they must be cartelled with now by newly established convention, has the position for life. 

For a nation which had just fought a war over what it asserted was arbitrary power being imposed with no restraint, to then hand arbitrary power with no restraint to someone who has no mechanism for removal other than impeachment which itself is a political process, is stupid. 

SECTION. 2

Clause 1

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

- to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

- to Controversies between two or more States;

- [between a State and Citizens of another State;-]* between Citizens of different States,

- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof;- and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]*

-

As the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in this Supreme Court by Clause 1, which has judicial power which extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, is original judicial law. SCOTUS itself has claimed that power for itself, then confirmed that power for itself; to change that position would require SCOTUS to rule against itself in a similar situation to the 1921 Queensland Legislative Council which at law abolished itself. 

All of the sub-clauses here which basically involve stating cases where the United States has standing, or where the States as parties have standing, is a functional statement that yes, SCOTUS is a court.

Clause 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

-

Generally speaking when rights cases are decided, the usual course of events to hand original Jurisdiction (that is the right to invent the law without the legislature), they are fought between some Joe Public and a State. This is purely legal trickery making use of the legal fictions in place but there you go. It is what it is.

Otherwise SCOTUS exists as the top appellate court in the United States; which usually only happens if an aggrieved party can make a case that the law itself was applied incorrectly or that there was some fault within the legislation itself; not as an appeal on the grounds of a dispute of facts.

Clause 3

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

-

This clause has been taken to mean the crimes that are the purview of the Federal Government and not crimes which are committed under the various State laws. Thus, for most cases where a crime has been committed, the relevant law and courts under which the crime is tried and tested are State laws and State courts.

The right to a Trial By Jury which is often claimed by people, thinking that they have some 7th Amendment right, even according to the words of this clause and the words of that amendment is not an absolute right. For there to be a right to be claimed, there has to be a Crime under a US Title and/or a common law suit where the value is more than twenty dollars; when you consider that the vast majority of crimes are in fact torts against property and person, then the alleged criminals are not charged under common law but statute law. 

SECTION. 3

Clauses 1 & 2

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

-

Now obviously treason is a serious act which requires the full force of the law but this limits the scope of what the definition of treason is to the point of practical irrelevance in Clause 1, and then assigns a phrase which is nonsensical. The phrase "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood" has been argued about in the Supreme Court and mostly has come to the conclusion that nobody really knows what the jinkies "Corruption of Blood" is supposed to mean.

In my country the Acts Interpretation Act says that words have their usual meaning, or a meaning that can be derived from a dictionary in common usage, with reference to the context that those words are being used in. Words mean what you think that they should mean. In this clause though "Corruption of Blood" is capitalised, which means that you are likely supposed to know that this is a formally defined thing; then the clause fails to formally define the thing. This is horrendously stupid.

Article. IV.

SECTION. 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

-

Before this Section starts to cloud the others below it, reading it by itself seems reasonable and just. The Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings should be given Full Faith and Credit in other states because if the states do not trust each other's rule of law, then the whole project of the Union breaks at the seams.

One of the unspoken things about the rule of law is that faith and credit in the law although it is ultimately backed by who can control the most swords, is still essentially a fiduciary agreement. Money, Law, Government, Institutions, are all faeries and if you don't believe in faeries, they all die. The various Laws, public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings, are like the sticks in the game of Kerplunk. If you start removing the little sticks, the marble falls and you lose. 

SECTION. 2

Clause 1

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

-

Some Citizens of various States were absolutely not entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in those States. If they were, the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments would have never needed to be passed. The phrase "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of" or variations thereof exists five times in the Amendments. I do not know how in one clause the Constitution can state that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given" when in the very next clause, the Constitution openly demonstrates bad faith. In practice, this clause was a lie from the outset.

Ever since the beginning of the world, it is the rich and powerful who have ruled and dictated what kinds of rights and privileges have been deigned to be afforded to common folk. Rights and privileges have never been given away freely but have always been won by people working together to win those rights and privileges with collective power. 

This is yet another clause in the United States Constitution to which my initial reaction was a cuss.

Clause 2

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

-

Sometimes the United States Constitution contains something which is reasonable but in practice is awful and terrible. If you read this clause with the one that comes next, the colour of this clause changes.

It makes sense that the various states should work together to ensure that justice is done, right? What if Justice itself is not blind, and sees the world through very racist coloured glasses? In practice this clause allowed magistrates to charge black people, slaves, native people, et cetera, in absentia, then use this clause to have those same people who rightly feared for their lives and the very real possibility of being lynched and being dangled as strange fruit, to be captured and then returned to the state that they came from.

Who is a another state jurisdiction going to believe? The words of someone who they are ambivalent to, or the law officers of another state? Remember, taken in conjunction with Article IV, Section 1, that other state is bound by the United States Constitution to believe that other state and the officers of the law therein.

Clause 3

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.]*

-

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 

Clause 3 spits in the face of the Creator, makes a mockery of certain inalienable rights, and then takes one glorious case of highly liquid diahorrea on the notion that all men are created equal. Not only did this Clause tacitly endorse slavery (by dancing around the word so that it didn't have to mention it) but it then binds the state to return a slave back to the the Party to whom such Service or Labour was claimed.

Fundamentally this clause states that even if a slave were to run away to another state where slavery wasn't a thing, that that state not only would not discharge the condition of slavery but was forced to return them back to the Slavemaster. 

Most of the action of this clause was rendered null and void by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, but it still took 77 years and the payment of blood on the battlefield to undo this stupidity. I hate this clause and everything it stands for. My first reaction upon reading this was also a single silent cuss.

SECTION. 3

Clause 1

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

-

When wee little America was but a mere 13 little colonies and states in the top right hand corner of the map, she knew that she had space to Manifest Destiny her way across the land. After tying up her sisters Columbia and Liberty, she then got some help from her Uncle Sam, to give native peoples fast moving lead poisoning; all the while inventing new States along the way, in the space not yet claimed by Canada or Mexico. 

No, this clause does not give rise to the often imagined suggestion that Texas unilaterally has the power to break itself into five because four of those new entities would need the consent of Congress to be admitted into the Union. And no, this clause also does not give rise to the idea that California could do likewise.

Also, thanks to the Insular Cases decided by SCOTUS, it doesn't matter how many times Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Guam, or American Samoa vote, they still won't be admitted by the Congress into this Union as states, unless Congress which is self interested, decides to. 

On that note, I have real doubts whether the proper judicial process was followed when admitting West Virginia as a State into the Union. The haterations and hollerations of the Confederacy and then Virginia itself, makes this particular admission look highly dubious. Still, West Virginia is not very likely to want to rejoin Virginia as that would mean that it loses autonomy; so that's that.

Clause 2

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

-

In relation to National Parks, unincorporated territories such as Sad Coconut Island(TM) Palmyra Atoll, and Indian Reservations with asterisks all the way down, the extent of what "needful Rules and Regulations" need to be made or allowed to be made by the Congress are so arcane, chimeral, and labyrinthine, that not even the great Sherlock Holmes could work his way out of this.

This clause is the small rocky outcrop upon which the Guano Islands Act sits upon. This strange skerrick of the US Title Code meant that the United States unilaterally declared that all islands in the world that were not owned by anyone (that is terra nullius) were now the property of the United States, provided that they had bird guano on them. The cover story for this was that the United States wanted to go phosphate mining for fertiliser but really this was about empire building.

SECTION. 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

- 

The first part of this section is abject nonsense because it is undefined beyond not being a monarchy. The word "republic" is derived from the Latin "res public" and implies that the thing is a public thing. Of itself that it utterly useless in defining what a "Republican Form of Government" is, or why it is important.

The second part of this states that The United States as the super collective of the States in the Union, at very least (and at most) promises to protect them against invasion. Given that the first duty of government is the defence of the realm, it makes little sense to me why this would need to be stated. Is this some kind of clause which was inserted because the various states were hesitant to sign up for the project of the Union? 

That this clause is likely written with the propaganda of the Declaration of Independence ringing slowly in the background. People like Hamilton wanted to install George Washington as King; which would have been somewhat ironic given that the war which had just recently ended was popularly assigned to be the fault of another King named George, when in practice it was Lord North's Government who practiced executive power. This is also ironic given that government truly was not even close to being a "res public" until the franchise was extended to most men by 1824, wasn't extended to some people who had been barred from voting upon the basis of race until 1868, wasn't extended to women until 1920, and then there were still residual cases existing until the Civil Rights Act 1965 was passed. So much for a "Republican Form of Government".

Horse 3374 - This Zoo Is Not Wild 2: Electric Boogaloo

https://www.southerncrossaustereo.com.au/media/media-releases/1041-2dayfm-announces-final-hughesy-ed-erin-breakfast-show/

Sydney’s 104.1 2DayFM today confirmed that the Hughesy, Ed & Erin Breakfast show has ended.

Hughsey, Ed and Erin said: “We’ve loved our time together on 2DayFM Breakfast, however, due to some of our families living in different cities we are unable to commit to 2025, so with a heavy heart we are moving aside so 2DayFM can find the team to take them forward in Breakfast. We are so grateful to Sydney for their support, and to double the number of listeners in three years is something we are immensely proud of, and we will miss each and every one of them.”

SCA thanks Dave Hughes, Erin Molan and Ed Kavalee for their passion and commitment to the 2DayFM Sydney Breakfast show over the past three and a half years.

- Southern Cross Austereo, 8th Aug 2024

This is where people would expect me to say "I hate to say I told you so" but the truth is that I love it.

https://rollo75.blogspot.com/2023/05/horse-3177-this-zoo-is-not-wild.html

Together, the Hughesy, Ed and Erin on 2Day-FM is a show which is less than the sum of its parts. This is a pity for 2Day-FM as I think that Southern Cross Austereo looked around at the biggest names that were available and they could slot into a morning zoo type program and hoped that it would work. It does not.

...

It really is like trying to capture lightning in a bottle and even then it has a maximum shelf life of about 5 years. 

- Horse 3177, 10th May 2023

Although Southern Cross Austereo has tried to spin this to make it sound like the reason for this show's axing was to do host Dave Hughes' unwillingness to move interstate permanently, and didn't want to continue commuting from Melbourne to Sydney, there is a far more obvious reason why this show is being axed. It's bad.

The audience has finally confirmed what I already knew, with the ratings on a month by month basis continuing to circle the drain. For the month of July, the Hughesy, Ed & Erin Breakfast show achieved a paltry 3.6% rating of the market but trying to throw Hughesy under the bus for his reasonable decision not to move to Sydney, just looks churlish. In comparison. 2Day FM's rivals at KIIS with Kyle and Jackie O and at WS-FM with Jonesy and Amanda scored 14.1% and 8.1% respectively.

What's really scummy about this was that Southern Cross Austereo’s Chief Content Officer, Dave Cameron (as opposed to former British PM David Cameron) told Hughesy, Ed and Erin after Wednesday morning’s show, in a lightning strike of a meeting, that the show would be cancelled. Quite rightly the trio after having been effectively fired, walked out; which meant that other hosts had to be called in for Thursday and Friday.

What went wrong? I think that I correctly identified this 15 months ago. Namely, that the show simply didn't work.

Ed Kavalee is simply too nice a person to bat things back at Dave Hughes. Dave Hughes who can be really quite acerbic at times, found that he had no obvious object to play with as a comedy punching bag. Erin Molan who usually has a hosting role on Sky News Australia where she plays the role of inane company spokesperson, neither has the comedy chops to be able to play the role in the morning zoo, nor was forceful enough to deliberately get rises out of Hughesy or Ed. The whole show often felt directionless at times; which is not want you want from an FM radio breakfast show.

An FM radio breakfast show ideally needs an established set of radio DJs or some kind of comedy duo or trio (or zoo). Comedy Duos generally have Dagger and Shield players like Southern Cross Austereo’s rivals at KIIS and WS-FM have. Comedy Trios have the Big, the Bounce, and the Boo-Hoo, like Clarkson, Hammond, and May. Functionally Hughesy wants to play Boohoo and while Ed can play Big, Erin can't do Bounce. Erin as Big, simply doesn't hand out enough comedy rope for the other two to hang themselves with. 

Basically Southern Cross Austereo’s problem is that they haven't hit the radio behemoth dominance ratings of Peter Moon and Wendy Harmer, or Kyle and Jackie O. 2Day FM would really like to be the commercial equivalent of BBC Radio 1 but to do that, it would actually have to go out and find fresh young talent but its commercial outlook means that it doesn't want to risk commercial failure (except here it has done exactly that).

If I was 2DayFM then I'd look through the ranks of the Melbourne International Comedy Festival and then select from the talent pool. People like Jimmy Rees, Danielle Walker, Nina Oyama etc. Find those people in Sydney and pick from them but make sure that they can play off of each other but don't attempt to build a morning zoo from components that simply do not work.

Horse 3373 - Toronto Clown Riot

Our story takes places in Toronto in the summer of 1855. Toronto at that time was a newish Canadian pioneer town which could best be described as rough. Very rough. Toronto was a town of about 40,000 people, created from the clash of many migrants from all over the world, and to service those 40,000 people, there were 152 public houses and a further 203 licenced premises. This means that for every 113 people, there was either a pub or a off-licence.

In addition to the liquor stores that were seemingly everywhere, there were brothels; lots of brothels. Owing to the fact that the oldest profession was still illegal in the Province of Canada, it is difficult to know how many brothels there were but we do know that there were a lot of them.

In July of 1855, S.B.Howes' Star Troupe Menagerie & Circus arrived in town for five days' of circus shows. S.B.Howes' was a proper old-fashioned circus with acrobats, high-wire performers, trick horse riders, as well as lion tamers and their lions, some elephants, and even a giraffe. For sleepy little Toronto, the arrival of the circus was a big draw-card. 

On the evening of Thursday, 12 July 1855, after the circus had performed its matinee and evening shows, and after the circus had closed for the day, a group of clowns having the rest of the evening off, decided to take advantage of the local nightlife. By local nightlife, we actually mean visit a brothel. The brothel that they happened to choose was "The Bordello of one Mary Ann Armstrong" on the corner of King Street & John Street; so they decided to settle in for the night and have some fun. Their night would not go as planned.

These were clowns that you would not want to pick a fight with. However, they picked the wrong brothel. What they found that that this was the hangout of the local private fire brigade, The Hook & Ladder Firefighting Company. These were firefighters whom you would also not want to pick a fight with either, for they already had a reputation for being involved in public violence and affray.

In 1855 there was no public fire service. Fire-brigades were owned by private fire companies who would either be contracted to put out fires in buildings that had contracted them through private insurance, or when a fire broke out, the private companies who were nearby would all rush to the scene of the fire with  their horse-drawn fire engines to see who would get there first; to then call dibs on who would get to put out the fire and thus, send out an invoice to the building owners.

However The Hook & Ladder Firefighting Company had been involved in an incident a few weeks earlier, when they arrived at a fire on Church Street at the same time as another fire brigade. As neither company would back down, this quickly turned into a flash point and a fight broke out then as well. As the building on Church Street burned to the ground, some of the firefighters from both brigades while both the fire and the fight were burning, then decided to loot and pillage the buildings that they were supposed to be saving. When the local police force arrived, they were also drawn into the ongoing brawl and when some kind of order was restored, a number of firefighters from both companies were charged with battery and assault. This incident was already known in Toronto as the "Firemen’s Riot"; which meant that the The Hook & Ladder Firefighting Company had already gained a reputation for violence but a group of outsiders such as clowns from a travelling circus would not have known that. 

The Toronto General Advertiser seems to have no idea about how the fight at Mary Ann Armstrong's Bordello began. One account blames a particularly "large and loud-mouthed clown". One account says that the clowns jumped the queue for service. One account says that a clown knocked the hat off a firefighter’s head. 

However it started, and whatever happened, we know this one thing. Do not mess with clowns. In the question of who would win the fight of "Clowns versus Firefighters", we know the answer. It is Clowns. At least two firefighters were seriously injured and/or dragged out of the brothel to safety as the Hook & Ladder company retreated; leaving the clowns in peace to drink the place dry and... do clown things.

The story does not end here however. 

Those firemen had friends, a lot of friends. In those days, Toronto was still pretty much entirely run by a small group of Protestant, Tory elites. They were all members of the Orange Order, they hung out together at the Orange Lodge, and they made sure that other Orangemen got all the important jobs in the city. The police were pretty much all Orangemen. And the firefighters were pretty much all Orangemen too. Usually, they focused on beating up Catholics, but here they were willing to make an occasional exception.

The fight at the brothel came on the day of the big annual Orange parade, July 12. And the next day — a Friday the 13th, no less — a crowd began to gather around S.B. Howes’ Star Troupe Menagerie & Circus. An angry, Orange crowd. The troupe had pitched their tents at the Fair Green, a big grassy space on the waterfront, just a few blocks east of the St. Lawrence Market; which the south-east corner of Front & Berkeley Sts. The farmers and merchants who had set up stalls nearby were told to clear out. There was trouble brewing.

They say word reached the police before violence broke out. But of course the Chief of Police, Samuel Sherwood, was an Orangeman. That’s how he got to be Chief of Police. In fact, years earlier he’d helped to organize a conservative Tory attack on a liberal Reform Party parade. One of the Reformers had been shot and killed. So when Chief Sherwood heard about the trouble down at the Fair Green, he dragged his feet for as long as he could. And then, eventually, he sent a few men to check it out.

By the time they got there, it had started. People were throwing stones. While the circus performers and the carnies were apparently able to hold the mob off for a while, it couldn’t last. Eventually, the crowd overwhelmed them. And when the Hook & Ladders arrived, all hell broke loose. They stormed the circus with pikes and axes, overturned wagons, pulled down the tents and the Big Top and set fire to them. They beat clowns to a pulp. Circus folk ran for their lives. Some dove into the lake for safety. It was mayhem.

It took the Mayor to settle things down. He came to the Fair Green in person, is said to have kept a firefighter from killing a clown with an axe by grabbing it out of his hands, and called in the militia to take control of the situation. Once things had calmed down, the circus performers came back for their belongings and then ran like hell.

The police had done pretty much nothing. They just watched. Even Chief Sherwood himself had eventually shown up, but could only claim to have stopped the rioters from setting fire to the cages of the animals. Of the 17 people who were charged in the riot, only one was ever convicted. All of the police who were at the scene claimed they couldn’t remember any of the Orangemen who had been there. Just like they had a few weeks earlier, after the Fireman’s Riot on Church.

That, as far as most people were concerned, was a cover up. And they would keep on coming. A few years later, there was another Protestant vs. Catholic riot — and Chief Sherwood’s memory was again suspiciously fuzzy as far as Orangemen were concerned. A few months after that, he was under fire again after freeing a suspect who had been accused of robbing a bank.

It was a turning point. City council called for deep reforms to the way Toronto’s police force was run. The provincial government agreed. An inquest was launched, and given a boost when a Reform Party candidate was elected mayor for the first time in more than 20 years. In the end, the whole old system was overthrown. Every single police officer in the city was fired and a new force was created from scratch. Nearly half of the old constables would end up being re-hired; it took nearly 100 years before the Orange stranglehold on power in Toronto was finally broken but the foundations of a current, sensible, secular, and modern police force had finally been laid...

...thanks to a bunch of Clowns.

Horse 3372 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 2 (continued)

SECTION. 2

Clause 1

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

-

As SCOTUS has now ruled that the President is immune from prosecution, which means that the President is now more God-like than the King of England whom they originally hated, we must assume that the President does in fact have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States which they themselves have committed. If you want to pretend that checks and balances exist here, then you are either delusional or deliberately nefariously stupid. There are no other options any more. The President is officially and legally above the law now. 

That makes the opening part of this clause all the more scary. As the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, and as someone with the metaphorical finger on the nuclear button, what we have is unrestrained power with the full force of the military behind them. 

Clause 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

- 

Especially at the end of Obama's term, we have seen that the "Advice and Consent of the Senate" is a weaponised piece of stupidity. It is now normative that the Congress, if it does not like the President's choice, can and withhold consent; including denying vacancies to be filled until they get their own stooge in the White House.

Can we also stop pretending that there are any checks and balances when it comes to the appointment of Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States? The game was successfully played at the end of Obama's term, principally by Mitch McConnell, to deny Obama the chance to make appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court; to leave the incoming President Trump to rubber stamp whom the Republican Party had already picked.

The Supreme Court, which by the way as the result of Madison v Marbury (1803) gave itself the power to say "what the law is", as a purely political body, was always unfit for the purpose of administering justice. This is probably the result of Hamilton wanting to appoint George Washington as King of the United States in everything but name, and then people like Madison and Jefferson who were highly interested in making factional plays to deliberately ruin the courts before they began. 

Clause 3

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session

-

If you had a particularly nasty President, which must happen eventually, then this clause which gifts the power to grant Commissions in the space between the times when the Senate is supposed to sit, then they could go fully-ham and make loads of Midnight Madness appointments. Pack the Court. Get SCOTUS to functionally strike off all kinds of clauses of the Constitution. The thing is that all of this is now perfectly allowed because the President is immune from prosecution. 

SECTION. 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

-

The State Of The Union address has been ceremonialised to be an official thing that happens once per year, except for those years where there is a handover of administrations. I think that the intent of this is by weight of force of law, to make the Congress sit at least once per year, though the phrase "from time to time" offers no such direction.

Just like the power of the Governor or the Governor-General in Westminster Parliaments, the President is handed the power to convene, dissolve and prorogue the Congress. In practice though, this is for extraordinary Occasions which virtually never happen, except in times of total war. 

I think it interesting that the President has the power to call a joint sitting of the chambers in cases where they cannot get their stuff together. 

SECTION. 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

-

Given that impeachment of Presidents has happened on a number of occasions, and also given that the Civil War itself proved not to be sufficient grounds for the Senate to act upon the grounds of impeachment, it can be argued that this section by demonstrated operation is almost functionally useless. Once upon a time when the party machines weren't quite so partisan and driven by the patrons who give them funding, perhaps this may have been a useful Section but not any more.

Horse 3371 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 2

Article. II.

SECTION. 1

Clause 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

-

As someone who lives in a country with a Westminster Parliament, the idea of executive Power being vested in a single person is obviously foreign to me. I note that when Hamilton envisaged the idea of idea of executive Power being vested in a single person, it was not foreign to him, probably. 

The idea of executive Power being vested in a single person, whom by the way isn't even directly answerable to the Congress who pass legislation, is monumentally stupid. In a representative parliamentary democracy, Ministers of State are directly answerable to the Parliament and must undergo direct questioning by that same Parliament.

As executive Power is vested in a single person, the United States technically doesn't have Ministers of State but Secretaries. This is a subtle legal distinction to make but a necessary one. The slight of hand here is that the shadow play is that they are only subordinates who wield no power at all (because executive Power shall be vested in a President) but we actually know that one person is physically unable to administer all the offices of executive government by themself, so the truth is being made an open mockery of.

Provided that we are prepared to accept the lie hidden in plain sight, we are fine but question it for even one second and the world get really weird really quickly. As they are only Secretaries, that means that there is no kind of scrutiny about the appointment of those Secretaries. That's okay, isn't it? It is perfectly acceptable that people who are only "Secretaries" who actually wield executive power, and who are appointed by means of personal patronage by the President, are never answerable to the Congress, isn't it? It's the separation of powers, with no check on that power whatsoever, and literally nothing on the other side of the balance. Yay, checks and balances. It's all perfectly fine if we are prepared to accept the lie hidden in plain sight, isn't it?

Clause 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Prof- it under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

-

This clause tells you the calculation method by which the various states choose what is popularly known as the Electoral College, which is a term that of itself does not actually appear within this document. 

I know what the framer were trying to get at and while it might have been a good method to achieve the ends of the late eighteenth century and remove democracy from the hands of the People, 236 years later it still is an excellent mechanism to achieve the ends of the late eighteenth century and remove democracy from the hands of the People. That's a bad thing.

The number of the of Senators and Representatives to which the State are entitled in the Congress, is 2 + the number of Representatives. Now while this looks like it might benefit the states with big populations, in practice what this has meant is that elections have swung on the vast middling grounds where people who live in West Banana, JF, and Armpit, XZ, have an outsized voice than those in the cities. Having already decided a stupid method for separating the executive and the parliament, this compounds the issue by egging the pudding in favour of places with lots of land.

The entire of Wyoming with less people than San Diego, gets three whole delegates to the Electoral College, where as San Diego County, gets what amounts to less than one. If you like the idea that rural people are better people, then this whole system is for you.

Clause 3

[The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.

-

Ah paperwork.

The People in the states do not actually vote for the President but for the people, who then get to sit in the Electoral College. Even then, the Electoral College itself is just a concept and they send two people to Washington, with the tally of who those Electors voted for. Note that there's absolutely nothing which binds who those Electors vote for and what the people of the State voted for. It is not uncommon for there to be "faithless electors" in the Electoral College, who having seen the choices available, will then use their vote to say something else and while that's fun, it is undemocratically stupid.

So not only do we have an idiotic system which decides Electors but the process itself then idiotically never binds those Electors to the will of the people. I'm sorry but if you think that this is either "fair" or "democratic", then you're either gleefully ignorant, or a happy liar, or a nefarious liar. 

Clause 4

But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]*

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

-

Clause 3 says that if you don't have a majority, then the decision to decide the President falls to the House. Clause 4 says that if you still can't get a majority, then each state gets one vote and the decision is made by a super-weird secondary state college thing. 

This is a band-aid solution to what is really a stage four cancer on democracy.

Clause 5

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 been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

-

The United States has taken the position that anyone born upon the soil of the United States, is a Citizen. This has led to a number of interesting quirks where various Presidents (the last one being Obama) was born in a place which was a territory but not a state. In 1789 upon the adoption of the Constitution, there were only 13 states and as the United States had not yet Manifest Destinied its way across the continent, people in land not yet conquered would not have been eligible to run the country they would be conquered by.

I think it took seven Presidents before there was the first one who was actually a "natural born Citizen" of the United States, owing to the fact that it would take quite a bit of time for there to even be a generation of people born as natural born Citizens to meet the clause.

Curiously the end clause that someone must have "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" does not specify when those fourteen years need to happen. Are they the last fourteen years? Can someone born in the United States and leave at the age of fifteen still be eligible? If so, by virtue of being born in New York City, does that mean that Boris Johnson could be theoretically President of the United States? Who knows? Nobody knows.

Clause 6

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.]*

-

Most of this has been made redundant by the 25th Amendment which crystallises the process for what happens when the President dies, resigns, or goes ga-ga. I suspect that the kind of disability was envisaged by the framers which could be removed, was likely to be serious sickness and unknown fevers. Quite apart from the United States love of shooting Presidents, the White House which used drew its water supply from the swampy lands next to it, is probably responsible for the deaths of maybe four Presidents.

The 25th Amendment was written after Kennedy was shot and after Nixon resigned; which meant that  the Congress did eventually "by Law provide" what would happen in such cases. This in itself is awful because it means that if someone wants to amend the Constitution, then the process is so deliberately bad, that their great-great-great grandchildren might not even benefit. I note that the Equal Rights Amendment still languishes, waiting to be added.

Clause 7

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

-

If you sign up to be the President, you will get paid some sum (which might include the sum of zero) and the amount isn't going to change for four years.

This sounds like any other terms of employment clause where you have a contract worker signging up for a fixed sum beforehand but when you consider that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Lord North, was paid on a year by year basis, perhaps the framers thought that this would add some kind of certainty to the role. People like John Adams thought that the job of President shouldn't even be compensated but that the prestige and honour of the job aught to be enough. I think that this is patently stupid as one can not eat prestige.

Clause 8 

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

-

As the 45th President proved with his incitement to violence on January 6th 2021, the functional use of this clause is claptrap. The fact that there have been no criminal prosecutions brought against him for failing to preserve, protect or defend the Constitution of the United States, more or less demonstrates that oaths of office are merely pomp, circumstance, and a shadow play. Having said that, it could also be asserted that the best of his Ability, is actually pretty low. 

Horse 3370 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 1 (continued)

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.

Clause 4 (repealed) 

[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.

Horse 3369 - I Could Never Be A Lawyer

Last week I was reminded yet again why after having worked for the Commonwealth Law Courts, both in the accounts department and as a Court Recorder, why the impulse to break free of the public gallery and stand at the bar never materialised with me. Obviously as someone whose job is very much shaped by arithmetic and the law, the whole kosmos of rules and logic resonates with me (in spite of how irrational and stupid I am). When it comes to that whole other world of law which looks not at legalities and constitutions and the letter of the law but at that kosmos of things we call people, we no longer look at what is sensible but what is insane, mad, irrational, stupid, obnoxious, and daft. Instead we look at things like crime and torts and injury and hurt and damage.

The case which we were given by a legal firm, is on the face of it very similar to other Family Law cases. We have a small construction firm which employs nine people and some subcontractors, which we have been asked to value. That is so far, straightforward. The reason why we were asked to value this small construction firm, has to do with that other side of human nature, which is  insane, mad, irrational, stupid, obnoxious, and daft, but blended with simple human evil. 

The story laid out which was adjacent to the Family Law case which we were looking at, has to do with a Husband whom we shall call H, who is openly violent to his wife W. The Family Law case which we have to deal with has collapsed from one which was going to look at what was an equitable solution to the dissolution of the marriage, to one where W actively needs to sue H for damages. Those damages include physical violence resulting in semi-serious injury; which is likely 99.999999% the reason why W had to run away with the children.

H's case as far as I can make out, H's defence involves claiming that he had W's consent before proceeding on a course of assault and battery. Speaking as Billy Brown from Sydney Town, that theoretical reasonable person, I just don't see how this argument holds any more water than the HMAS Colander. Rub my nose in the dirt and call me stinky but I have no idea why, or even how someone would consent to suffering assault and battery unless there was some really strange and abnormally abnormal things going on inside their brain. 

Battery which is different to assault, is when the defendant must have intended the consequence of the contact with the plaintiff. Someone who pulls the trigger of a gun if they think it is unloaded, might be negligent but there might be an absence of intent. They might very well want to cause a threat but actually be too unthinking to think through the consequence of a bullet which they do not know about, striking the injured plaintiff. Here you have negligence but not requisite intention in order to be liable for a tort of battery.

Admittedly in most cases, it is very very obvious to all that someone intends to do harm. If I come at you with an axe and threaten to chop your legs down, then it should be obvious to all and everyone that I intended to make contact with the injured person; even Blind Freddy can see that. If I come at you with an axe and threaten to chop your legs down, then it is really really difficult for me to argue that I am not aware of the consequences of coming at you with an axe, and likely impossible to make the argument that I had your consent, to stick.

So this is why in this case, I see not possible circumstances given the nature and frequency of H's striking of W that there can be anything other than clear and obvious intention to make contact and to cause harm. Sure, he may feel remorse for having done such a thing for a time buy domestic violence has a nasty habit of being cyclical; due to the root cause in more than 99% of cases, that the husband is a bastard.

In most cases, that it can simply be inferred from the If I strike someone with an axe, except in the most unusual circumstances, that I intend to cause harm to someone. Likewise, if I strike someone, unless I have completely lost all sense, then it should also be obvious that that I intend to cause harm to someone. Who is going to consent to that?

The concept of consent in tort law is pretty simple. Consent is agreement or permission expressed through affirmative, voluntary words or actions that are mutually understandable to all parties involved, to engage in a specific act at a specific time. Likewise, consent can be withdrawn at any time, as long as it is clearly communicated. Get it? Got it? Good.

H's defence is that W consented to being struck. Let me rephrase that. Even after multiple occasions, even after W has reported multiple incidents to the police, and then finally run away with the children, the defence that H is relying upon, is that W consented to being struck. I think that it is as obvious as the day is long, that this a bald faced lie. I think that W's actions conclusively prove that to be the case and yet the defence that H is relying upon, is that W consented to being struck. 

Under normal circumstances if you are guilty of a crime, then if I was a trial lawyer, I would expect you to plead "not guilty" because the onus of proof rests with the prosecution to prove all of the elements of guilt. However, in a situation which involves domestic violence where it is obvious to all and sundry, then while I would expect you to plead "not guilty", where the proof that can be produced is so ready at hand, then pleading "not guilty" looks very silly. 

Here is why I would never go and practice law. It's not that I do not want to see justice done. It is not that I do not want to see the world made better. Rather, that someone has to prepare the legal case for people like H. The legal system that we live with is that people are entitled to an adequate defence at law. I have no idea how people when knowing that their client is as guilty as the day is long, as able to square that circle in their minds. Maybe they are not able to? I do not know. Maybe some people's sense of justice is able to compartmentalise the fact that this is a job, and that they still need to do a good job for bad people because it is the right thing to do. I do not think that I have the moral hardware to do that. That sounds to me like paradigm shifting without the clutch and money shotting one's morals. Nevertheless, someone has to do it.

If you are a lawyer, then I respect your profession because in many circumstances you have the job of defending the very guilty, and the sometimes evil, to the best of your ability. Having to deal with the insane, mad, irrational, stupid, obnoxious, and daft as the raw materials of the job is something that I simply could not do; and why I chose numbers instead.

Horse 3368 - The Mascot For The 2032 Brisbane Olympics Should Be...

Ludo Studios, the creators of the TV Series "Bluey" on ABC1, posted this picture to their official Facebook page at the weekend:

Now because I want to play with everything forever, my mind immediately pondered that Bluey should be the official Olympic Mascot for the 2032 Olympic Games in Brisbane.

Then I paused.

Well no actually.

While there are indeed various petitions online to make Bluey for the 2032 Olympic Games in Brisbane, I think that there is potential fo something even grander than that. I do not think that just Bluey Bluey should be the mascot but rather...

The number of mascots at the 2032 Olympic Games in Brisbane should be 40.

I shall explain why.

Mascots for sporting tournaments tend to be the kind of thing which exists for a time and then is easily forgotten. Mascots for sporting tournaments exist in no context other than that time and place which they were created for and have no ability to be translated to anything else. Perhaps the exception to this was the series of daily newspaper comic strips in which Zakumi who was the mascot for the 2010 FIFA World Cup played with his friends for a time ran in various South African newspapers. Zakumi lasted for a slightly longer time the just the duration of the World Cup, however that is the exception rather than the rule. Sadly, the reason why mascots are easily forgotten is that they have no bigger world than the time and space they were created for.

Bluey is different.

Bluey already exists in a very big world, with loads of friends, and already very much has a sense of place. With the possible exceptions of Batman who lives in Gotham City, or various anime where suburban Tokyo is the default setting of just about everything, there are not really that many comic characters who are that obviously linked to that kind of sense of place. Yes there are cartoon characters who live in a fully fleshed out world but not even The Simpsons who live in Springfield, are linked to anywhere in the real world. In fact the location of Springfield and which state it is in, is a point of canon which is specifically unknown. In contrast, if there was a series made in 2054, where Bluey and Bingo are grown up and with children of their own, that future series would still likely be set in Brisbane. The word Queensland is specifically name called and the skyline is very very Brisbane. 

Although this looks like a fait accompli as to why Bluey in principle should be should be the official Olympic Mascot for the 2032 Olympic Games in Brisbane, that is that Bluey is so very obviously linked to the city, it kind of hints at the reason why mascots get left behind in the time and place which they were created. That is, they have to do all the work themselves.

Previous mascots for Olympics, end up have to do every sport and be good at it. Immediately you have unrealistic expectation on the mascots. Kobe at Barcelona in 1992 and Izzy at Atlanta in 1996, had the stage all to themselves and while this did mean that they could swim, run, dunk a basketball, throw a javelin, et cetera, they were very lonely. Not even Sydney which started the trend with three mascots (Syd, Millie and Olly (and unofficially Fatso)), really did much to break the mould which had been cast.

Bluey is different.

The thing about having a very large ensemble cast, in a very big world, with loads of friends, and already very much has a sense of place, is that if done correctly, no one character needs to do all the work themselves. Instead of having that one mascot who does every single sport, the  very large ensemble cast can collectively play all the sports. Characters like Footix, Zakumi or Nutmeg who were all football mascots, only had to play one sport.  Where as someone like Vinicious at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro has a series of two-minute shorts, the fact that he still had to do everything, left him up kind of sterile.

Having loads of characters, lends itself to a unique idea. As this one picture suggests, you could have a different character for every single sport, such as:

Bluey - Swimming

Bandit - Tennis

Chili - Field Hockey

Big Belt - Weightlifting

Muffin - Gymnastics

Honey - Archery

The Terriers - Fencing

Winston - Wrestling

Bingo - Running

... et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

This also solves the related problem of the Pictogram. Pictograms were introduced at Tokyo in 1964 because the organisers knew that as Japanese has three scripts, none of which look familiar to most visitors who come from countries who use Extended-Latin scripts, that they needed to come up with something that would communicate things in a hurry without needing to read. Since then they have been played with, from the ultra-efficient Pictograms at Munich in 1972, to the borderline ridiculous at Mexico City in 1968 and Paris in 2024 where form has completely obliterated function. By linking a different character for every different sport, not only do you remove the sterility which exists by one character having to do everything but it does that deeper task of linking story to place.

Further to this, by linking character to story to place, and having a very large ensemble cast, in a very big world, with loads of friends, this would enable the whole design language of the games to tell a bigger and better story; namely that everyone can have a go. The series Bluey with its very large ensemble cast already has a range of characters who all look different and diverse but who share a unified design language. That would also lend itself to the slogan of the Olympics without having to think about it: "Everyone can have a go”.

The only real precedent for this was Astroboy who kind of became the mascot of Tokyo in 1964, or perhaps possible Charlie Brown and Snoopy who lent their names to the Apollo 10 spacecraft. Yes Bluey is a proprietary property which as all kinds of licencing arrangements in place but that’s a problem for legal people to work out. 

Horse 3367 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 1 (continued)

SECTION. 8

Clause 1

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

- 

This single clause of all the operative clauses of the United States' Constitution is among the most contentious and at the centre of a lot of very bitter court cases. This is because human nature is such that the amount that people want to pay for things, including the upkeep of the nation, is zero. They will even invent the lie that taxation is theft to justify why they do not want to pay (which morally sounds like trying to justify freeloading).

The introduction of Federal Income Tax proved so controversial, even though this clause seems pretty plenary in its scope to me, was enough to prompt the Sixteenth Amendment; which doesn't really functionally do anything to expand the scope of the words "Power To lay and collect Taxes" at all. 

What I find very weaselly about this is that although this clause empowers the Congress to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" it does not impose this as a duty to do so. This is why public education did not arrive en masse until well into the nineteenth century in some parts of the country, and why supposedly the richest and greatest country in the world is so utter poxy and bereft of moral fibre that it can't even provide basic health care to 13% of the population. It's perfectly capable and frequently does find the money to bomb the cuss out of brown people but can't even be bothered to lift a finger to help out its own citizenry. What a poxy little country.

Clause 2

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

- 

This wee clause cuts right to the heart of what the telos of money is. A United States Dollar, drawn on the credit of the United States and borrowed by the Department of Treasury from the Federal Reserve, is in principle a small debt which exists for the purpose of doing one unit of work; to be later retired upon the destruction of that same Dollar upon payment of taxation. What is an money? Avalanches about: business continues below. Commence arguing.

The new system of government (invented mostly by Hamilton) would always have to agree to and inherit the debts accrued by the Continental Congress and the States, for running the business of the War of Independence. Upon the establishment of the first Federal Reserve system, the United States Of America (that is, the new corporation sole established by this very Constitution) took on the collective debt of $75,000,000. Just like Britain and France, the United States Of America was broke and had to rely on the fidus of the American people that the new United States Dollar as created as a result of this clause, would be good for the full faith and credit of the United States. It was. For a very brief period in 1831, the United States Of America actually was debt free. Since then, which includes the collapse of several Federal Reserve systems, the United States has reaccumulated debt like a drunkard at a Gin and Wine Party, because the people who have all the money do not want to pay.

Clause 3

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

-

The popular story about why the United States was started, contains elements of truth. The slogan "No Taxation Without Representation" while fun, contains the very big blind spot that most men didn't get the franchise until the states were forced to drop property ownership requirements over the next half-century, and most women didn't get the franchise until the passage of the 19th Amendment. The thing that actually caused the outrage had to do with business people being forced to pay a tax of ninepence in the pound, for the value of tea imported to the United States, as well as taxes imposed upon intoxicating liquors. 9d./£1 = 3.75% which doesn't seem like a lot. What makes this a particularly hot topic is that the "tax" wasn't really a tax but practically a payment to the East India Company who ran a monopoly on trade.

The new United States Government wanted in on that sweet sweet taxation money; so what is really fun is that by 1794, there was a landed tax on the value of tea imported to the United States at 5c/$1 or 1s./£1 which at 5% is higher than the tax that people complained about; plus with continuance of the fact that most people who actually did the fighting in the War Of Independence, that is the Privates, the Engineers, the Gunners, et cetera, still didn't get the franchise in their lifetime. It was still "Taxation Without Representation" but at least it was Taxation Without Representation to Americans, which is a good thing, yeah?

Also take note of the part of this clause "and with the Indian Tribes". As the United States has a "Republican" form of government and as the treaty process with Native Americans is so very complex as to be asterisks all the way down, and as the fact that United States had not Manifest Destined its way across the continent and killed people left right and centre (yet), the question as to what to do with Native Americans was drop-punted into the next century and then the Civil War got in the way so it was drop-punted into the next century and then the Civil Rights Movement still didn't really resolve the problem so it was drop-punted into the next century and here we are.

As for the question of how much the Federal Government can actually regulate Commerce among the several States, is one which is stupidly unresolved in all directions and any multi-state business which needs to contend with different state taxes and different wages even across counties, realises that this clause is wildly ineffective at doing anything.

Clause 4

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

- 

The question of "who is a citizen?" and "who is entitled to the rights therein?" are questions that were of immediate import to the new nation. What I find insidious is that there was still doubts over whether or not native peoples were citizens and therefore entitled to citizenship or not, in spite of the fact that the United States was Manifest Destinying its way through native peoples' homes and lands. The idea that there should be uniform Rules surrounding Naturalization and who is and is not a citizen and that the Federal Government should the one to decide this as a matter of fact, seems as obvious as the day is long to me.

Exactly what Naturalization and Bankruptcy have to do with each other is beyond me. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean at all.

Clause 5

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

-

In the late eighteenth century the most common coin in circulation in the United States for big values, was not the Sovereign but the Spanish 8 Real coin. The de facto exchange rate between the Spanish Real and the British Pound was 32:1 which meant that the Spanish 8 Real was effectively worth Five Shillings. As this was also a relative big coin, it like all big coins were popularly called a Dollar, after the "Thaler" which was a similar big coin in use in the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire and in the haphazard Italian and German states and city states.

After America adopted the Constitution and went to establish its own mint, the French Revolution kicked off in 1789 and probably because there was a sense of friendship and goodwill with all things French, as France adopted a decimal currency, the United States basically took its existing principle coin (the Dollar) and broke it into 10 dimes abd 100 centimes (and 1000 mils). Thus the United States not quite two and a half centuries after inception, is still using a thing derived from a hybrid British Pound and Spanish 8 Real.

While I am here and this whole thing is very clearly me ranting about stuff like a Village Idiot on the floor of the Congress of Morons, I may as well voice my complaint about two coins. Firstly, the Cent coin: it costs more than one cent to make and because it's a pain in the posterior, it also costs more for people to have to deal with it. In fact, the United States Cent's only efficient use, is as washers and spacers in place of hardware, and in trumpet muzzles as buckshot. The United States Cent fails at its only job which is to facilitate commerce.

Secondly, the United States Dollar Coin is very superior to the United States Dollar Note in every single aspect, including durability and the fact that when a Dollar Coin gets  old and beat up, it still gets accepted in vending machines, whereas beat up Dollar Notes do not. The United States used to have Dollar Coins and I bet that it the machinery was set up to accept those, they would still take coins from more than 200 years ago but won't take a Note from eight weeks ago.

Clause 6

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

-

Yeah, don't do it. It's dangerous. Stay safe.

Clause 7

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

-

When the United States wants to do socialism, it does so in a very big way; so much so that this tiny little clause is the basis of the biggest and most expensive socialist project in the history of the world. That is, the Eisenhower System Of Defence Highways.

When Dwight D Eisenhower, who would eventually go on to become General, then Supreme Allied Commander, and then finally President, was but a private in the US Army, he was sent out on a survey mission with the Army Corps of Engineers to drive a series of trucks across the United States in the early 1920s. The quality of the roads were so bad that this journey took weeks. The Army Corps of Engineers made their report back to the federal government and then it was filed away.

If you then fast forward thirty years to when Eisenhower rose upwards and upwards, when he eventually became President, he appointed Charles Erwin Wilson who was the ex-CEO of General Motors corporation. If ever there was proof of the military-industrial-complex, isn't it a coincidence that the ex-CEO of General Motors and a President who had seen the efficiency of the autobahn system in the Third Reich, suddenly found the funds to build the interstate system? Isn't it a coincidence that the ex-CEO of General Motors should suddenly find himself at the centre of government and have authorised the building of lots and lots of massive public roads to the tune of what would eventually cost $450bn? What a coincidence! 

Clause 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

- 

I find it interesting that even before the invention of the modern novel, before the invention of so much of the built world as a result of the sciences, that the United States Constitution seems strangely prescient about copyright and patent laws. Granted that the United States was itself an invention of the Age of Enlightenment but this seems to have more to do with how someone spins a profit than anything else. 

If you read through the notes of the Constitutional Conventions, this is one of the few examples where famous philanderer and bounder Benjamin Franklin, had his mitts all over the place. This clause assumes that the benefits of the invention of things as a result of science and arts is not a collective good for the benefit of all and that the inventor should have right to extract royalties from their invention. To what degree and how long those royalties should extend for, has been a very long running debate (sometimes under the watchful eye of the mouse).

Clause 9

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

-

You know that popular sentiment that there is a separation of powers, well this clause kind of makes a mockery of that.

While the Supreme Court lives outside the Congress, the inferior tribunals are very much constituted by the Congress. Also, the executive functions of the court system, are vested in the Department of Justice; which is the domain of the office of the President. The idea that there are checks and balances here, is materially a lie. Except for the Supreme Court, Congress if they wanted to, could constitute and run all the inferior courts pretty well much by diktat.  

Clause 10

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

-

YAAARGH. Here be pirates, ye land-lubbers. Shiver me timbers and bezack me jik-jaks. Piracy on the High Seas is all good and proper but what exactly are "Offenses against the Law of Nations"? Remember, this is after the Treaty of Westphalia but well before things like the League of Nations and the United Nations. Exactly what "the Law of Nations" is, was a mystery almost as soon as it was committed to paper. 

Clause 11

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

- 

This is subtle and strange. Although the President is the head of the armed forces by virtue of being the head of executive government, the President does not have the power to declare war and really only has powers granted by other legislation to enact 'police action' for a limited period of time. The power to declare war, and enter into treaties et cetera is vested in the Congress.

In practice all that this means is that the Congress passes legislation when appropriate to Authorise The Use Of Military Force (AUMF) and these AUMFs end up being open ended horrorshows. The unpleasantnesses in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan, and minor kerfuffles in places like Malaya, Kosovo, and Libya et cetera, were not wars and did not remotely look like wars, did they?

Presumably Congress wanted to limit the power of the President because they had just been through a revolution in which the King of England was personally blamed for the use of force. Likely this is the result of works like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pamphlet and the text of the Declaration of Independence which was quite popular but materially a lie. Granted that the King was the ultimate bearer of the use of force but that was always the case. The actual use of British force was more diffuse and the actual prosecutors of war were Lord North's executive government.

Having said that even in the twenty-first century, it is quite frankly strange and bizarre that the head of state is not the progenitor of declarations of war because as we saw this century, it is parliaments and the Congress who ultimately push for that use of force. This in conjunction with the operational clauses that mean that two-thirds of the Congress can override the President, mean that if popular feeling runs hot then the President can not act as that last stop; including when they should do.

Clauses 12 to 16

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

-

I shall take all of these together as they are the same subject but granular. 

Of course it makes sense that the Congress as the branch of government empowered to make war should have the power and right to make laws regarding same. Of course it makes sense that as the first duty of government is the defence of the realm, that the government empowered to that end should have the ability to do so. However what is schizophonic about these particular clauses is the conditions and spirit under which they were created.

One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that the King commanded and quartered standing armies within the American colonies. These clauses, in the face of those complaints (and in fact justly so), now empower Congress to raise and support and maintain standing armies within those same American colonies (now states). The arguments behind these clauses which people went ballistic over and indeed even within the anti-Federalist factions which would only agree to ratifying the United States Constitution at all if there was another Bill of Rights tacked on the end, was that there should not be a standing army at all and that the defence of the nation should be formed on an ad-hoc basis when necessary. Even then, this would have been madness.

What I find so very very evil about the consequence of how these clauses have been interpreted by the Supreme Court, is that when it when it mentions things like “organizing, arming, and disciplining” and “training” because they are then followed by the object of “the Militia”, the opinion of the Supreme Court as stated in Heller v DC (2009) is that they only apply in relation to “the Militia” and not to an individual. The functional reading of any kind of attempt to introduce any kind of gun control is “YIPPY-O KI-AY, PARENTAL-CUSSER” and then openly accepting the deaths of 50 times per capita due to firearms as my country, as the acceptable price of so-called freedom. Not even the deaths of primary school children, or assassination attempts on Presidential candidates (or even the deaths of four Presidents) is enough to move the needle in any direction.  

Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;

-

This is ultimately the clause which gives rise to the creation of the capital District of Columbia, which is part of no state but looks very much like one in every single respect except for the fact that it is hideously disenfranchised. 

The District of Columbia gets one member of the House Of Representatives, who gets zero say on legislation. They get no members at all in the Senate. They get three votes in the Electoral College, which comes about because they get representation in the election of a President as if they were a state. Being the House member for the District of Columbia is on par with being the Vice President because they have no power, but still get paid a salary for essentially doing nothing.

Based upon some reading, I have come to the conclusion that the argument about where to put the Seat of the Government and the Capitol was the subject of bitter debates because while the states wanted it closeby, they did not want to have to cede the territory to place it. What we have now is a weird half square thing cut out from the state of Maryland; which as far as I can tell is advantageous to everyone except Maryland.

Clause 18

-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

- 

Quite frankly, all of Section 8 could have been replaced with this clause and the words "in all cases whatsoever"; which would have established plenary powers to the Federal Government. I am sure that just like Australia, or Canada, or Germany, or any other country with a state/province/canton system that melds into a Federation, that they would have naturally fallen into a set of useful arrangements.