The US Constitution Is a Contract, And It Has Been Broken

What do you think of this?
I could be right, or I could be off.
Lemme' know.

Senate.Gov - US Constitution

My thought - The US Constitution is a contract agreement between the citizens of the United States and it's government. The citizens and the government follow the terms of the agreement or the contract is broken. I say that the invasion of illegals is a break of contract on the part of the US Government and therefore, the contract is nullified.

Article I, Section 8 clearly says that the government has - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". See that? The government has to repel invasions. Instead, the Biden administration is actually inviting them in by cutting razor wire and having the catch and release inside the USA policy etc etc It's an invasion and it's breaking the country.

Further - Since the contract is broken, it is also nullified, and states can succeed from the Union to protect themselves from invasion. If the contract was still valid then the states can not succeed. The Supreme Court has said so. However, since the contract has been violated by the government and broken, states can succeed, I would think.

SO ... is this correct in thought or am I way off base?
And - WILL states succeed? Like Texas?
Or - will states just continue to suck it up and allow an invasion to happen because Biden wants to turn Texas blue with illegals and their offspring?


Side question ... are sanctuary cities breaking the Constitution too?

Article I Section 10 - 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.

Sanctuary cities aren't states ... but are they entering into agreement with foreign powers when they declare themselves sanctuaries for illegals from from countries?

"Invasion"

Must be election year.

originally posted by: Euronymous2625
"Invasion"

Must be election year.

Even many Democrats are calling it that.
Because that's what it is.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Man, if only someone had been doing something to try and stop this before it got this bad........

a reply to: FlyersFan

I see both political parties interpret the wording that suits their beliefs and agendae. So breaking a contract would depend on which context or interpretation and that is settled in a court of law, as we see being played out continuously.

a reply to: Euronymous2625

It is an invasion. 10+ million illegal immigrants officially since the Biden admin. took office. That's greater than the population of 40 of 50 US states. That's over 270,000 every MONTH, and doesn't even include illegals who have come here who are not showing up in the official numbers.

Illegal border crossers total over 10 million since Biden inauguration

en.wikipedia.org...

According to this Texas policy , entry alone isn't 'invasion' according to the framers. But according to the dictionary , invasion is any encroachment or intrusion.

I think that being overrun by foreigners that will harm America, even though they aren't armed, is an invasion. The original meaning of 'invasion' probably meant armed foreigners with bad intent. The framers couldn't possibly have foreseen an overcrowded and poor South America sending tens of millions of poor and criminal people across the border so they didn't use the term 'overrun'. But the Constitution is supposed to be a 'living document' that is interpreted to meet the needs of society as it changes. Right? And wouldn't being overrun to the point of breaking the country be 'invasion'. The sheer numbers of people and their financial burden that breaks America could meet the requirement of the word 'invasion', I'd think.

Well then, GET OUT THERE.

I'll be happy to watch it on TV. You know the part where you get arrested, go to court, get convicted, and go to jail. Ask any January 6th defendant. It's great!

YOU be the first.

Oh, and as far as the border goes, ASK the REPUBLCANS why we can't get comprehensive border security legislation done. If they are honest, they will tell you they need the border as a political tool. Trump wants them to wait for the same reason. And so, IT AIN'T GETTIN' DONE. I blame them. So please with the whining about the border.

a reply to: FlyersFan

The " contract agreement " was broken over 200 years ago, when Washington DC was under the control of a foreign power. And then burnt to the ground.

a reply to: Disgusted123

Funny new guy. You tried really hard with that one, didn't ya'? Well .. try again.

Here's what the opening post asked. See if you can stay on the topic. Does the invasion of tens of millions of illegals constitute a break in the US Constitution contract between government and the citizens, specifically Article I Section 8. And if the contract is broken, does that mean that the states can succeed, because they can't if the contract isn't broken.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: quintessentone
[snip]

The Framers recognized that democracies were always vulnerable to factions and tyranny. They therefore constructed the Constitution as a check on legislative and executive decisions. It was also decided early on that the unrepresentative, unaccountable courts would have final say as to the meaning of the Constitution’s directives. After all, what would be the point of imposing limits on majorities if those majorities had final say as to what those directives mean?

To undermine that long-accepted system is to threaten the delicate balance between democracy and constitutionalism. Without some constitutional directive to the contrary, it is dangerous for the Supreme Court to defer to Congress in the interpretation of the Constitution.

thehill.com...

I guess those within the Supreme Court are commies then if I used your reasoning, which I never would.

edit on q00000001229America/Chicago1919America/Chicago2 by quintessentone because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/1/2024 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Disgusted123
Well then, GET OUT THERE.

I'll be happy to watch it on TV. You know the part where you get arrested, go to court, get convicted, and go to jail. Ask any January 6th defendant. It's great!

YOU be the first.

Oh, and as far as the border goes, ASK the REPUBLCANS why we can't get comprehensive border security legislation done. If they are honest, they will tell you they need the border as a political tool. Trump wants them to wait for the same reason. And so, IT AIN'T GETTIN' DONE. I blame them. So please with the whining about the border.

For people on a conspiracy site when it comes to any conspiracies with their party they go dumb. It's ridiculous and you have seen the light when it comes to the border issue.

its sad that America has come to this point, where one party is trying to destroy our own country and tear apart what made us a superpower, if you trumpers get what you want only decline will await us, you will be basically handing over the world to china and relegate the USA to being a secondary power once again.

maybe its time we resolve this issue of state vs federal government once and for all, either keep federalism or embrace a unitary system where states are puppets of the central government, before things get out of hand.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Not a lawyer, but as I understand it, a contract is devised to memorialize an agreement between parties who seek to engage in an activity requiring certain, specified, contributions/efforts from each party,


in return for certain, specified benefits resultant from said joint endeavor.



By such definition, exactly what "benefits" does the Government attain by virtue of this supposed contract you claim the Constitution to be?


The Constitution is obviously impingent upon the Government of the United States;


But where in that document does it encumber the citizens of the Country to perform their reciprocal service to the Government?

U.S. citizens are not even required to vote in civil elections (Federal or State).

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: quintessentone

[snip]

So, I take it you're unhappy with The Supreme Court's recent ruling against Texas' razor wire stunt?

originally posted by: namehere
where one party is trying to destroy our own country and tear apart what made us a superpower,

Half the country thinks that is the democrat party. And they have good reason to.

only decline will await us

... yeah, cuz' tens of millions of illegals and wide open borders like the Democrats want is only good for us, right? Pffft.

if you trumpers get what you want

I'm not a 'Trumper'. I go Libertarian. I'm asking a question. Care to address it?

Does the invasion of tens of millions of illegals constitute a break in the US Constitution contract between government and the citizens, specifically Article I Section 8. And if the contract is broken, does that mean that the states can succeed, because they can't if the contract isn't broken.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Excellent. Someone is on topic!

You asked - But where in that document does it encumber the citizens of the Country to perform their reciprocal service to the Government?

My questions - Does someone have to do something of service, or is simply being a citizen holding up their end of the contract? Like the citizen saying - "I'll be a citizen and I'll pay for everything if you'll take care of everything" and the government saying "We will be the government and keep invaders out".

a reply to: FlyersFan

I mean we've already stepped off the cliff with covid BS, just waiting for the splat.

History is being written by machine technology is it not?

Withdraw consent to be governed by racketeers and extortionists is death sentence.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
What do you think of this?
I could be right, or I could be off.
Lemme' know.

Senate.Gov - US Constitution

My thought - The US Constitution is a contract agreement between the citizens of the United States and it's government. The citizens and the government follow the terms of the agreement or the contract is broken. I say that the invasion of illegals is a break of contract on the part of the US Government and therefore, the contract is nullified.

Article I, Section 8 clearly says that the government has - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". See that? The government has to repel invasions. Instead, the Biden administration is actually inviting them in by cutting razor wire and having the catch and release inside the USA policy etc etc It's an invasion and it's breaking the country.

Further - Since the contract is broken, it is also nullified, and states can succeed from the Union to protect themselves from invasion. If the contract was still valid then the states can not succeed. The Supreme Court has said so. However, since the contract has been violated by the government and broken, states can succeed, I would think.

SO ... is this correct in thought or am I way off base?
And - WILL states succeed? Like Texas?
Or - will states just continue to suck it up and allow an invasion to happen because Biden wants to turn Texas blue with illegals and their offspring?


Side question ... are sanctuary cities breaking the Constitution too?

Article I Section 10 - 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.

Sanctuary cities aren't states ... but are they entering into agreement with foreign powers when they declare themselves sanctuaries for illegals from from countries?

Here's what Texas has to say about it:

"The American history of the term “invasion” reveals that its literal meaning is entry plus enmity: Entry alone, which is trespass, is not sufficient to constitute an invasion. Although the Framers occasionally used “invade” in a metaphorical sense, we know that in the Compact Clause they used the word in its literal sense, because that clause’s ancestor text in the Articles of Confederation refers to invasion “by enemies.” Past non-state actors, like pirates and barbarians, fell under the category of “invaders” in the opinion of certain American statesmen, such as Madison. Present-day non-state actors, like cartel-affiliated gangs operating within the territory of a U.S. state, MAY [my emphasis] fall under the category of invaders, provided their criminal activity reaches a scale or degree of organization that deliberately overthrows or curtails the lawful sovereignty of the state.

www.texaspolicy.com...

Random poor people illegally crossing the border to get a job does not count as "enmity", or "ill will" against the US. Quite the opposite, actually. Sounds like Texas has spoken on this issue.

BTW, it's "secede", not "succeed".