RE: U.S. Constitution: Rhode Island: June 14, 1790

[Guest guest]

Hi Jorge I look forward to your rectification of this admittance date for Rhode Island.. As you may know this State took a long time to come around to a willingness to to the Constitution. In a letter dated June 1, 1790 to Congress informing them that the State had ratified the Constitution pn May 29th, President Washington expressed his gratification that at long last the original "13" were again in UNION. From the Journals of the House and Senate, it's clear that Washington signed in the morning, not the afternoon. I should think 7:30 to 11:30 is the range of possibility. At that time, 1789-91, the Government was still in New York. The President worked out of his home just off Franklin Square, and he routinely started work "early". Also, Washington held on to the act for a few

days after approval by Congress, undoubtedly waiting for the "14TH" to affix the Presidential signature. June 14th was important to him, and the nation. June 14, 1775 is the birthday of the U.S. Armed Forces [for some Americans, only the Army]. The Continental Army was established 3 days before Washington was appointed the commanding General on June 17, 1775. And, more, for on June 14th, 3 years later, on June 14, 1777 this was the day Congress adopted the American Flag, the "Stars and Stripes." June 14 was always the most important commemorative day of the year for

Washington. As America's most prominent Freemason Washington placed great significance in the 'Ole' Thirteen. His signature thus making Rhode Island the 13th of the original States to join the consritutional UNION was affixed on June 14, 1790; exactly.13 years after the adoption of the nation's flag. And so, please rectify with due diligence and care. CHEERS, JohnJorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote: My dear John, Thanks again for your continuous clarifications. I agree that the September 17, 1787 chart presented by you should be understood more as the chart of USA Constitution. If we look to this important event in the July 2, 1776 chart, we can have a deeper understanding of it. Dasha: Ma/Ma/Ra/Ju/Ju Mars, L6 (judicial functioning, communal harmony in the country and labour relations) transits over Jupiter, L2 (status and relationships within the country and with neighbors), and Rahu (diplomatic moves, changes) is natally placed in H9 (judicial system, progress and development), transits H2 and aspects natal Jupiter and transit Mars. The need for a new Constitution came out of a lack of power from the central government, as we can understand from: By 1786, Americans recognized that the Articles of Confederation, the foundation document for the new United States adopted in 1777, had to be substantially modified. The Articles gave Congress virtually no power to regulate domestic affairs--no power to tax, no power to regulate commerce. Without coercive power, Congress had to depend on financial contributions from the states, and they often time turned down requests. Congress had neither the money to pay soldiers for their service in the Revolutionary War or to repay foreign loans granted to support the war effort. In 1786, the United States was bankrupt. Moreover, the young nation faced many other challenges and threats. States engaged in an endless war of economic discrimination against commerce from other states. Southern states battled northern states for economic advantage. The country was ill-equipped to fight a war--and other nations wondered whether treaties with the United States were worth the paper they were written

on. On top of all else, Americans suffered from injured pride, as European nations dismissed the United States as "a third-rate republic." America's creditor class had other worries. In Rhode Island (called by elites "Rogue Island"), a state legislature dominated by the debtor class passed legislation essentially forgiving all debts as it considered a measure that

would redistribute property every thirteen years. The final straw for many came in western Massachusetts where angry farmers, led by Daniel Shays, took up arms and engaged in active rebellion in an effort to gain debt relief. Troubles with the existing Confederation of States finally convinced the Continental Congress, in February 1787, to call for a convention of delegates to meet in May in Philadelphia "to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." Across the country, the cry "Liberty!" filled the air. But what liberty? Few people claim to be anti-liberty, but the word "liberty" has many meanings. Should the delegates be most concerned with protected liberty of conscience, liberty of contract (meaning, for many at the time, the right of creditors to collect debts owed under their contracts), or the liberty to hold property (debtors complained that this liberty was being taken by banks and other creditors)? Moreover, the cry for liberty could mean two very different things with respect to the slave issue--for some, the liberty to own slaves needed protection, while for others (those more able to see through black eyes), liberty meant ending the slavery. Convention in PhiladelphiaThe room in Independence Hall (formerly the State House) in Philadelphia where debates over the proposed Constitution took place (photo by Doug Linder) On May 25, 1787, a week later than scheduled, delegates from the various states met in the Pennsylvania

State House in Philadelphia. Among the first orders of business was electing George Washington president of the Convention and establishing the rules--including complete secrecy concerning its deliberations--that would guide the proceedings. (Several delegates, most notably James Madison, took extensive notes, but these were not published until decades later.) The main business of the Convention began four days later when Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented and defended a plan for new structure of government (called the "Virginia Plan") that had been chiefly drafted by fellow Virginia delegate, James Madison. The Virginia Plan called for a strong national government with both branches of the legislative branch apportioned by population. The plan gave the national government the power to legislate "in all cases in which the separate States are incompetent" and even gave a proposed national Council of Revision a veto power over state legislatures. Delegates from smaller states, and states less

sympathetic to broad federal powers, opposed many of the provisions in the Virginia Plan. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina asked whether proponents of the plan "meant to abolish the State Governments altogether." On June 14, a competing plan, called the "New Jersey Plan," was presented by delegate William Paterson of New Jersey. The New Jersey Plan kept federal powers rather limited and created no new Congress. Instead, the plan enlarged some of the powers then held by the Continental Congress. Paterson made plain the adamant opposition of delegates from many of the smaller states to any new plan that would deprive them of equal voting power ("equal suffrage") in the legislative branch. Over the course of the next three months, delegates worked out a series of compromises between the competing plans. New powers were granted to Congress to regulate the economy, currency, and the national defense, but provisions which would give the national government a veto power over new state laws was rejected. At the insistence of delegates from southern states, Congress was denied the power to limit the slave trade for a minimum of twenty years and slaves--although denied the vote and not recognized as citizens by those states--were allowed to be counted as 3/5 persons for the purpose of apportioning representatives and determining electoral votes. Most importantly, perhaps, delegates compromised on the thorny issue of apportioning members of Congress, an issue that had bitterly divided the larger and smaller states. Under a plan put

forward by delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut ("the Connecticut Compromise"), representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population while each state would be guaranteed an equal two senators in the new Senate. By

September, the final compromises were made, the final clauses polished, and it came time to vote. In the Convention, each state--regardless of its number of delegates-- had one vote, so a state evenly split could not register a vote for adoption. In the end, thirty-nine of the fifty-five delegates supported adoption of the new Constitution, barely enough to win support from each of the twelve attending state delegations. (Rhode Island, which had opposed the Convention, sent no delegation.) Following a signing ceremony on September 17, most of the delegates repaired to the City Tavern on Second Street near Walnut where, according to George Washington, they "dined together

and took cordial leave of each other." Regarding the coming into being of the different states on their admission dates, and not on their ratification dates, it shows very clearly that they are not independent. Their existence as states depends on the approval by the central government and US Congress, and begins only in the appointed date, previously approved by the President of USA. The chart of USA independence is the rectified one for July 2, 1776, at 16:48, in Philadelphia. Best wishes, Jorge SAMVA [sAMVA ] On Behalf Of JohnTWBterça-feira, 4 de Abril de 2006 10:37SAMVA Subject: U.S. Constitution: Arun/David/Sally/ & , of course, Jorge Hi everyone I just love

taking biting criticism from such competent analysts. Honestly! I've learned things not apparent to me at the time of my analysis. THANKS to Arun, David and Sally. Really! Putting all my cards on the table here and now, actually I don't believe the radix for September 17, 1787 is more than what it really purports to be by its nature, and that which should be accorded to one among many very important American horoscopes: This 1787 horoscope represents the TEXT of the U.S. Constitution, yet not its 1788 enactment. The time moment I've established is historically accurate to plus/minus 10 minutes. I.E., the long standing rectification of record, posted at AstroDataBank for 11:29 a.m., was first published by Ralph Kraum and Ernest Grant in 1949. It's apparent that they didn't know the details of the history of that day in Philadelphia. Naturally, Kraum and Grant's findings are the result of a rectifying fishing-expedition from which they arrived at 11:29 am. It looked right to them. Later, Catherine Bowen did the historical detail work, years after 1949. I read her book. You should too. Arun, David and Sally are in essential agreement on this radix.

Forget about considering this radix as the birth of the national USA. Just reflect on what this horoscope says about America's 'living Constitution'. No wonder it's been a source of such political and social conflict these past 2-plus centuries. SO WHY DID STATE THAT THIS RADIX IS THAT OF THE USA ??: Well, I wanted to establish by re-emphasis a rhetorical point. If you review my post you'll see that I was making an argument in constructive criticism regarding the implications of Jorge's frame of reference for identifying the birth charts of the individual U.S. States. Although I

shall not belabor my position in future posts, I remain adamant that Jorge, however well intentioned, has opened a 'can-of-worms' on this matter. To follow his course of selection is by necessary implication to relegate the July 2, 1776 radix to a pre-natal-conception status. It's really that. And, yes, I don't like that. To submit in rejoinder that: "Well, it works." is hardly a scientific reply. I recall some years ago studying Rick Houck's birth chart for the U.S.A., which is June 19, 1776 @ 11:53:50, Philadelphia; Lagna 06:49 Virgo. Did anything noteworthy and historic regarding independence happen

that day? No, of course not. Houck knew this, to be sure. He abided by it, "because it works." I can think of no more fitting tribute to the lunacy of anti-science than Rick Houck's sense of humor in this regard. Need I remind anyone about how many astrologers committed to a July 4th radix sing the praise: "that it works", among them those who abide by either Sibly or Kelleher or Broughton (Broughton, July 4th, 2:13 am, when presumably supposedly the 7 Masonic conspirators among the 44 delegates were hard at work signing the Declaration.) When an astrologer declares: "because it works." I can only conclude the astrologer's hearing aid has been turned off. Conversation, finished. MORE ON MY DEAR FRIEND JORGE"S TIRELESS EFFORTS: Jorge may be unaware that the first 11 subscribing States to the U.S. Constitution were, all ELEVEN at once, admitted to this constitutional Union on the same day, Saturday, September 13, 1788 [my rectification, @ 12:32:21 hrs] Yes, the day that the Congress of the Confederation "resolved" that all ratification procedures had been complied with, and the UNION was then and there commenced. If Jorge is to be consistent with the later joiners and their admission dates, then so too ought this admission date criterion prevail for all the States. If Jorge were to prefer the criterion of ratification dates, then when he re-visits the Confederate States, he's wading knee-deep in the muck of America's Civil War & Reconstruction history. Georgia was the last

Confederate State to be re-admitted to the Union, at the point of a Marshal Law 'gun'. Re-admission date of record, and observed by Jorge: July 15, 1870. Ok, but when did Georgia earlier ratify this re-entry? Ratification necessarily always precedes admission in a constitutionally free society. Good Luck in the search for Georgia's Re-ratification before admission. TO HELP JORGE ALONG: VERMONT at Bennington ratified the Constitution on January 10, 1791, but the State was not admitted to the UNION until March 4, 1791 RHODE ISLAND at Providence

ratified the Constitution on May 29th 1790, but the State was not admitted to the UNION until June 14, 1790 [President Washington signed that morning]. Jorge has chosen admittance dates overe ratification dates for the later statehoods. I think the first 11 States should be treated in the same fashion; they are in need of re-statement by him to September 13, 1788, the day the CONSTITUTION was given effect, was born, and these first 11 were only then admitted. My best to all, John Sally Spencer <sally234 wrote: Hello Arun, David and List,After looking at the chart proposed here,

the (if I'm not mistaken we are looking at) Sept. 17 1787, at 15:28:02 PM date as a U.S. birth chart..I noticed a few things. Mars is weak and the assumption is it's inaccurate, contrarily, the fact that it is somewhat strongly aspecting both the sixth and the twelfth houses, signifying losses and accidents overseas, along with Ketu which brings extra volatility, tells me maybe a weak Mars is more accurate since the U.S. doesn't seem to show much forbearance when it comes to war like behavior. Jupiter as well aspects both, signifiying losses overseas which is accurate for war expenses and again overseas interests.Ketu afflicts the sixth house, health care is atrocious from my point of view, as many Americans suffer it's lack and others accessibility and affordability.Saturn ruling status and wealth is well placed in it's own mool sign, albeit weak ( I don't see leadership as being so strong-looking after our best interests is not the most altruistic approach and therefore could be considered a low approach). The status may come from the Sun, chart lord , signifier of leaders and dispositor of both Venus (American presence in the world) and Mercury (American fortune as clout). Saturn also aspects the eighth house for status and eleventh for gains and aspirations!Rahu is in the twelfth, showing an obsession with overseas interests.There is an interesting combination of the ninth and tenth lord conjunct in the eighth signifying some public philosophical influence on the beliefs of the people. (status quo, propaganda), (hidden agenda-Rahu in twelve)The chart lord, Sun is

eighth lord, (a Mars influence), is well placed in the ninth house.Just my observations on this interesting discussion.Aloha, Sally On 4/3/06, arunrao9 <arunrao9 wrote: Dear SAMVA List,Mr. Hawthorne is right; this

chart is utterly weak in every respect,with multiple afflictions as well. Rahu and Ketu afflict theirdusthana houses of placement as well as their aspected houses, same with the badly placed Jupiter, and MMP Sun afflicts as well. Mars isbadly placed, and closely conjunct the Rahu/Ketu axis. Six out of ninegrahas are badly placed, with only one planet, weak malefic Sun,placed in an angle or trine. Other than infant Saturn's placement in its own MT-sign, there is nothing in this chart to support the USA'spower, wealth, and military might.One could vouch for Saturn's placement in the 2nd house, being thelord of status/wealth in its own MT-sign, as being supportive of America's high international status. However, Saturn, when acting asdeterminant of status, usually does not bestow such results,especially when placed in one of its signs. Such a placement (in oneof its own signs) tends to make Saturn act more like its

own nature, being the planet of lowest status. Saturn in such a case will protectits MT-house with whatever strength it retains. However, I don't thinksuch a Saturn will promote a country's status/wealth.Any other comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Best Wishes,Arun RaoSAMVA , "David Hawthorne" <david wrote:>> Dear John:>> I have always respected your fine work and efforts. >> I still do.>> However, in viewing the chart of the birth of USA, using Sept. 17,1787 at 15:28:02, it does not appear that this chart supports thegrowth, prosperity or military power of the country. >> Moon is debilitated, every planet in the chart is weak on someaccount, and Rahu and Ketu afflict the houses they occupy and aspect,along with Mars.>> Perhaps I

am missing something and your views, as always, would be appreciated.>> Thank you.>> David Hawthorne>>>>> -> JohnTWB> samva > Monday, April 03, 2006 2:38 AM> U.S. STATES: Jorge's Dramatic Revision>>> Dear Jorge,>> Now that your postings on the U.S. States have gained in number,your selection rationale for the rectified birth dates has becomeunmistakably apparent, however intentional on your part; a rationalebased on the foundation of the U.S. CONSTITUTION of 1787. >> Example here: The State of New York has been long recognized bycompetent historians to have completed the independent Union of the'Ole'

13 on July 9, 1776, in the afternoon, Tarrytown, Westchester, N.Y. @ 14:24 hrs. [Please read George Bancroft's HISTORY OF THE U.S.(1866), Volume IX, pgs 33-34]. Since now that New York has beendetermined by you to have been born a State only 12 years later, inJuly 1788, at the time of NY's ratification of the 1787 Constitution, then one should have no choice but to infer that you have now conludedthat the American nation, once considered by you to have been born onJuly 2, 1776, somehow [cosmo-genetically, speaking] had been"Re-born", on September 17, 1787. ["Re-born" is a concept you have already used recently in another context.]. The logic of yourposition is inescapable. [Actually, I don't think that one needsnecessarily resort to the concept of metempsychosis to explain thisprocess. But you imply undoubtedly (however unintentionally) that July 2 ,1776, at least, has become in your

estimation a pre-natalmoment in the birth of the American States>> Don't get me wrong. Your change of mind is a quite defensible;the rationale that you have adopted clearly does 'work', if that is your intention. But do you have the courage to face up to theimplications of your own choice of rationale ? Because, if youpersist in the belief that the United States of America was born onJuly 2, 1776, but all 50 States comprising this Union were born in later years, starting in late 1787 with Delaware, then you will findyourself in the embrace of one very glaring contradiction, theimplications of which need no elaboration just now; for they areobvious. And the resort to an empirical defense of this embrace-in-contradiction will not help.>> I have offered you what amounts to the content of an exit strategyin my previous

post. Since you didn't act on it, so be it; however,my inferences summarized already shall remain difficult if not impossible to dispute, without some chagrin on your side.>> In my humble estimation, you appear to have painted yourself intoa corner with the U.S. State charts by not addressing first thequestion of the foundation radix for the nation State. In order to persist with your line of assessment, it necessarily follows that theU.S.A.-qua-bodypolitic radix of July 2, 1776 was but a pre-natalconception moment for the American nation State's birth more than 11years later, and the radix for which necessarily now becomes: SEPTEMBER 17, 1787, Philadelphia. And after long study going back 2years, I may add in further detail: @ 15:28:02 hrs, (Lahiri)Ascendent = 07:23 Capricorn, MC = 00:13 Scorpio, Luna = 16:00 Scorpio.> >

Co-incidentally, I've worked abit with a western siderealastrologer who has a keen interest in the U.S. Constitution.Consistent with the results of our efforts, consider 15:28:02 hrs myvoted rectified time moment for this historic event. And read Catherine Drinker Bowen's MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA, pg 262, for thehistorical accuracy of this rectified time moment.>> I particularly like the radix of Sept 17, 1787: BECAUSE [01] theLagna @ 7:23 Capricorn is in the very same exact position of the Moon on July 2, 1776, @ 16:48:05 hrs [Your rectified time, Jorge]. And[02]: the 1787 Moon @ 16:00 Scorpio is in the very same sign & degreeas the Lagna of your 1776 chart, which is 15:30 Scorpio.>> Thanks for the fine work, by your efforts I'm now convinced that the U.S.A as a nation State was conceived July 2, 1776 @ 16:48:05;then born on September 17,

1787 @ 15:28:02.>> Cheers & Thanks, John> --Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release 03.04.2006 --Version:

7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release 03.04.2006

[Guest guest]

Hi John,

 

Do you know approximately at which time

they have voted on the 29 May 1790? Morning or afternoon? That will help…

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Cheers,

 

Jorge

 

 

SAMVA

[sAMVA ] On Behalf Of JohnTWB

terça-feira, 4 de Abril de

2006 14:04

SAMVA

RE: U.S.

Constitution: Rhode Island: June 14, 1790

 

 

Hi Jorge

 

 

 

 

 

I look forward to your

rectification of this admittance date for Rhode Island..

 

 

 

 

 

As you may know this State

took a long time to come around to a willingness to to the

Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

In a letter dated June 1,

1790 to Congress informing them that the State had ratified the Constitution pn

May 29th, President Washington expressed his gratification that at

long last the original " 13 " were again in UNION.

 

 

 

 

 

From the Journals of the

House and Senate, it's clear that Washington signed in the morning, not the

afternoon. I should think 7:30 to 11:30 is the range of possibility. At

that time, 1789-91, the Government was still in New York. The President

worked out of his home just off Franklin Square, and he routinely started work

" early " .

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Washington held

on to the act for a few days after approval by Congress, undoubtedly waiting

for the " 14TH " to affix the Presidential signature. June

14th was important to him, and the nation. June 14, 1775 is the birthday

of the U.S. Armed Forces [for some Americans, only the Army]. The

Continental Army was established 3 days before Washington was appointed the

commanding General on June 17, 1775. And, more, for on June 14th, 3 years

later, on June 14, 1777 this was the day Congress adopted the American Flag,

the " Stars and Stripes. " June 14 was always the most important

commemorative day of the year for Washington.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As America's most prominent

Freemason Washington placed great significance in the 'Ole' Thirteen. His

signature thus making Rhode Island the 13th of the original States to join the

consritutional UNION was affixed on June 14, 1790; exactly.13 years after the

adoption of the nation's flag.

 

 

 

 

 

And so, please rectify with

due diligence and care.

 

 

 

 

 

CHEERS, John

 

Jorge Angelino

<jorge.angelino wrote:

 

 

 

 

My dear John,

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks again for your continuous clarifications.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that the September 17, 1787 chart presented by you should be understood more as the chart of USA

Constitution. If we look to this important event in the July 2, 1776 chart, we

can have a deeper understanding of it.

 

 

 

 

 

Dasha: Ma/Ma/Ra/Ju/Ju

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mars, L6 (judicial functioning, communal harmony in the

country and labour relations) transits over Jupiter, L2 (status and

relationships within the country and with neighbors), and Rahu (diplomatic

moves, changes) is natally placed in H9 (judicial system, progress and

development), transits H2 and aspects natal Jupiter and transit Mars.

 

 

 

 

 

The need for a new Constitution came out of a lack of power

from the central government, as we can understand from:

 

 

By 1786, Americans recognized that the Articles of Confederation,

the foundation document for the new United States adopted in 1777, had to be

substantially modified. The Articles gave Congress virtually no power to

regulate domestic affairs--no power to tax, no power to regulate

commerce. Without coercive power, Congress had to depend on financial

contributions from the states, and they often time turned down requests.

Congress had neither the money to pay soldiers for their service in the

Revolutionary War or to repay foreign loans granted to support the war

effort. In 1786, the United States was bankrupt. Moreover, the

young nation faced many other challenges and threats. States engaged in

an endless war of economic discrimination against commerce from other

states. Southern states battled northern states for economic

advantage. The country was ill-equipped to fight a war--and other nations

wondered whether treaties with the United States were worth the paper they were

written on. On top of all else, Americans suffered from injured pride, as

European nations dismissed the United States as " a third-rate

republic. "

 

 

America's creditor class had other worries. In Rhode

Island (called by elites " Rogue Island " ), a state legislature

dominated by the debtor class passed legislation essentially forgiving all debts

as it considered a measure that would redistribute property every thirteen

years. The final straw for many came in western Massachusetts where angry

farmers, led by Daniel Shays, took up arms and engaged in active rebellion in

an effort to gain debt relief.

 

 

Troubles with the existing Confederation of States finally

convinced the Continental Congress, in February 1787, to call for a convention

of delegates to meet in May in Philadelphia " to devise such further

provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the

Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union. "

 

 

Across the country, the cry " Liberty! " filled the

air. But what liberty? Few

people claim to be anti-liberty, but the word " liberty " has many

meanings. Should the delegates be most concerned with protected liberty

of conscience, liberty of contract (meaning, for many at the time, the right of

creditors to collect debts owed under their contracts), or the liberty to hold

property (debtors complained that this liberty was being taken by banks and

other creditors)? Moreover, the cry for liberty could mean two very

different things with respect to the slave issue--for some, the liberty to own

slaves needed protection, while for others (those more able to see

through black eyes), liberty meant ending the slavery.

 

Convention in Philadelphia

 

 

The room in Independence Hall (formerly the

State House) in Philadelphia

where debates over the proposed Constitution took place (photo by Doug Linder)

 

On May 25, 1787, a week later than scheduled, delegates from

the various states met in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia.

Among the first orders of business was electing George Washington president of

the Convention and establishing the rules--including complete secrecy

concerning its deliberations--that would guide the proceedings. (Several

delegates, most notably James Madison, took extensive notes, but these were not

published until decades later.)

 

 

The main business of the Convention began four days later

when Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented and defended a plan for new

structure of government (called the " Virginia Plan " ) that had been

chiefly drafted by fellow Virginia delegate, James Madison. The Virginia

Plan called for a strong national government with both branches of the

legislative branch apportioned by population. The plan gave the national

government the power to legislate " in all cases in which the separate States

are incompetent " and even gave a proposed national Council of Revision a

veto power over state legislatures.

 

 

Delegates from smaller states, and states less sympathetic to

broad federal powers, opposed many of the provisions in the Virginia

Plan. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina asked whether proponents of the

plan " meant to abolish the State Governments altogether. " On

June 14, a competing plan, called the " New Jersey Plan, " was

presented by delegate William Paterson of New Jersey. The New Jersey Plan

kept federal powers rather limited and created no new Congress. Instead,

the plan enlarged some of the powers then held by the Continental

Congress. Paterson made plain the adamant opposition of delegates

from many of the smaller states to any new plan that would deprive them of

equal voting power ( " equal suffrage " ) in the legislative

branch.

 

 

Over the course of the next three months, delegates worked

out a series of compromises between the competing plans. New powers were

granted to Congress to regulate the economy, currency, and the national

defense, but provisions which would give the national government a veto

power over new state laws was rejected. At the insistence of delegates

from southern states, Congress was denied the power to limit the slave trade for

a minimum of twenty years and slaves--although denied the vote and not

recognized as citizens by those states--were allowed to be counted as 3/5

persons for the purpose of apportioning representatives and determining

electoral votes. Most importantly, perhaps, delegates compromised on the

thorny issue of apportioning members of Congress, an issue that had bitterly

divided the larger and smaller states. Under a plan put forward by

delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut ( " the Connecticut Compromise " ),

representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population

while each state would be guaranteed an equal two senators in the new Senate.

 

 

By September, the final compromises were made, the final

clauses polished, and it came time to vote. In the Convention, each

state--regardless of its number of delegates-- had one vote, so a state evenly

split could not register a vote for adoption. In the end, thirty-nine of

the fifty-five delegates supported adoption of the new Constitution, barely

enough to win support from each of the twelve attending state delegations.

(Rhode Island, which had opposed the Convention, sent no delegation.)

Following a signing ceremony on September 17, most of the delegates repaired to

the City Tavern on Second Street near Walnut where, according to George

Washington, they " dined together and took cordial leave of each

other. "

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the coming into being of the different states on

their admission dates, and not on their ratification dates, it shows very

clearly that they are not independent. Their existence as states depends on the

approval by the central government and US Congress, and begins only in the

appointed date, previously approved by the President of USA.

 

 

 

 

 

The chart of USA independence is the rectified one for July

2, 1776, at 16:48, in Philadelphia.

 

 

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 

 

 

Jorge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAMVA

[sAMVA ] On Behalf Of JohnTWB

terça-feira, 4 de Abril de

2006 10:37

SAMVA

U.S.

Constitution: Arun/David/Sally/ & , of course, Jorge

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi everyone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just love

taking biting criticism from such competent analysts. Honestly! I've

learned things not apparent to me at the time of my analysis. THANKS to Arun,

David and Sally. Really!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Putting all my cards on the

table here and now, actually I don't believe the radix for September 17, 1787

is more than what it really purports to be by its nature, and that which

should be accorded to one among many very important American horoscopes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This 1787

horoscope represents the TEXT of the U.S. Constitution, yet not its 1788

enactment. The time moment I've established is historically accurate to

plus/minus 10 minutes. I.E., the long standing rectification of record,

posted at AstroDataBank for 11:29 a.m., was first published by Ralph Kraum

and Ernest Grant in 1949. It's apparent that they didn't know the details

of the history of that day in Philadelphia. Naturally, Kraum and Grant's

findings are the result of a rectifying fishing-expedition from which

they arrived at 11:29 am. It looked right to them. Later, Catherine

Bowen did the historical detail work, years after 1949. I read her book.

You should too. Arun, David and Sally are in essential agreement on this

radix. Forget about considering this radix as the birth of the national

USA. Just reflect on what this horoscope says about

America's 'living Constitution'. No wonder it's been a source of such

political and social conflict these past 2-plus centuries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SO WHY DID STATE

THAT THIS RADIX IS THAT OF THE USA ??: Well, I wanted to establish by

re-emphasis a rhetorical point. If you review my post you'll see that I

was making an argument in constructive criticism regarding the implications of

Jorge's frame of reference for identifying the birth charts of the individual

U.S. States. Although I shall not belabor my position in future posts, I remain

adamant that Jorge, however well intentioned, has opened a 'can-of-worms' on

this matter. To follow his course of selection is by necessary

implication to relegate the July 2, 1776 radix to a pre-natal-conception

status. It's really that. And, yes, I don't like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To submit in rejoinder that:

" Well, it works. " is hardly a scientific reply. I recall some

years ago studying Rick Houck's birth chart for the U.S.A., which is June

19, 1776 @ 11:53:50, Philadelphia; Lagna 06:49 Virgo. Did anything

noteworthy and historic regarding independence happen that day? No, of course

not. Houck knew this, to be sure. He abided by it, " because it

works. " I can think of no more fitting tribute to the lunacy of

anti-science than Rick Houck's sense of humor in this regard. Need I remind

anyone about how many astrologers committed to a July 4th radix sing the

praise: " that it works " , among them those who abide by either

Sibly or Kelleher or Broughton (Broughton, July 4th, 2:13 am, when presumably

supposedly the 7 Masonic conspirators among the 44 delegates were hard at work

signing the Declaration.) When an astrologer declares: " because it

works. " I can only conclude the astrologer's hearing aid has been turned

off. Conversation, finished.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MORE ON MY DEAR FRIEND

JORGE " S TIRELESS EFFORTS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jorge may be unaware that

the first 11 subscribing States to the U.S. Constitution were, all ELEVEN at

once, admitted to this constitutional Union on the same day, Saturday,

September 13, 1788 [my rectification, @ 12:32:21 hrs]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, the day that the Congress

of the Confederation " resolved " that all ratification procedures had

been complied with, and the UNION was then and there commenced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Jorge is to be consistent

with the later joiners and their admission dates, then so too ought this

admission date criterion prevail for all the States. If Jorge were to

prefer the criterion of ratification dates, then when he re-visits the

Confederate States, he's wading knee-deep in the muck of America's Civil War

& Reconstruction history. Georgia was the last Confederate State to

be re-admitted to the Union, at the point of a Marshal Law 'gun'. Re-admission

date of record, and observed by Jorge: July 15, 1870. Ok, but when did

Georgia earlier ratify this re-entry? Ratification necessarily always precedes

admission in a constitutionally free society. Good Luck in the search for

Georgia's Re-ratification before admission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TO HELP JORGE ALONG:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERMONT at Bennington

ratified the Constitution on January 10, 1791, but the State was not admitted

to the UNION until March 4, 1791

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RHODE ISLAND at Providence

ratified the Constitution on May 29th 1790, but the State was not

admitted to the UNION until June 14, 1790 [President Washington signed that

morning].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jorge has chosen admittance

dates overe ratification dates for the later statehoods. I think the

first 11 States should be treated in the same fashion; they are in need of

re-statement by him to September 13, 1788, the day the CONSTITUTION was given

effect, was born, and these first 11 were only then admitted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My best to all,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sally Spencer <sally234

wrote:

 

 

 

 

Hello Arun, David and List,

 

After looking at the chart proposed here, the (if

I'm not mistaken we are looking at) Sept. 17 1787, at 15:28:02 PM date as a

U.S. birth chart..

 

I noticed a few things. Mars is weak

and the assumption is it's inaccurate, contrarily, the fact that it is somewhat

strongly aspecting both the sixth and the twelfth houses, signifying losses and

accidents overseas, along with Ketu which brings extra volatility, tells me

maybe a weak Mars is more accurate since the U.S. doesn't seem to show much

forbearance when it comes to war like behavior.

 

Jupiter as well aspects both, signifiying

losses overseas which is accurate for war expenses and again overseas interests.

 

Ketu afflicts the sixth house, health care is

atrocious from my point of view, as many Americans suffer it's lack and others

accessibility and affordability.

 

Saturn ruling

status and wealth is well placed in it's own mool sign, albeit weak ( I don't see

leadership as being so strong-looking after our best interests is not the most

altruistic approach and therefore could be considered a low approach).

The status may come from the Sun, chart lord , signifier of leaders and

dispositor of both Venus (American presence in the world) and Mercury (American

fortune as clout). Saturn also aspects the eighth house for status and

eleventh for gains and aspirations!

 

Rahu is in the twelfth, showing an obsession with

overseas interests.

 

There is an interesting combination of the ninth

and tenth lord conjunct in the eighth signifying some public philosophical

influence on the beliefs of the people. (status quo, propaganda), (hidden

agenda-Rahu in twelve)

 

The chart lord, Sun is eighth lord, (a Mars

influence), is well placed in the ninth house.

 

Just my observations on this interesting

discussion.

 

Aloha,

 

Sally

 

 

 

On

4/3/06, arunrao9 <arunrao9 wrote:

 

 

 

Dear SAMVA List,

 

Mr. Hawthorne is right; this chart is utterly weak in every respect,

with multiple afflictions as well. Rahu and Ketu afflict their

dusthana houses of placement as well as their aspected houses, same

with the badly placed Jupiter, and MMP Sun afflicts as well. Mars is

badly placed, and closely conjunct the Rahu/Ketu axis. Six out of nine

grahas are badly placed, with only one planet, weak malefic Sun,

placed in an angle or trine. Other than infant Saturn's placement in

its own MT-sign, there is nothing in this chart to support the USA's

power, wealth, and military might.

 

One could vouch for Saturn's placement in the 2nd house, being the

lord of status/wealth in its own MT-sign, as being supportive of

America's high international status. However, Saturn, when acting as

determinant of status, usually does not bestow such results,

especially when placed in one of its signs. Such a placement (in one

of its own signs) tends to make Saturn act more like its own nature,

being the planet of lowest status. Saturn in such a case will protect

its MT-house with whatever strength it retains. However, I don't think

such a Saturn will promote a country's status/wealth.

 

Any other comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Arun Rao

 

 

 

 

SAMVA ,

" David Hawthorne " <david wrote:

>

> Dear John:

>

> I have always respected your fine work and efforts.

>

> I still do.

>

> However, in viewing the chart of the birth of USA, using Sept. 17,

1787 at 15:28:02, it does not appear that this chart supports the

growth, prosperity or military power of the country.

>

> Moon is debilitated, every planet in the chart is weak on some

account, and Rahu and Ketu afflict the houses they occupy and aspect,

along with Mars.

>

> Perhaps I am missing something and your views, as always, would be

appreciated.

>

> Thank you.

>

> David Hawthorne

>

>

>

>

> -

> JohnTWB

> samva

> Monday, April 03, 2006 2:38 AM

> U.S. STATES: Jorge's Dramatic Revision

>

>

> Dear Jorge,

>

> Now that your postings on the U.S. States have gained in

number,

your selection rationale for the rectified birth dates has become

unmistakably apparent, however intentional on your part; a rationale

based on the foundation of the U.S. CONSTITUTION of 1787.

>

> Example here: The State of New York has been long recognized

by

competent historians to have completed the independent Union of the

'Ole' 13 on July 9, 1776, in the afternoon, Tarrytown, Westchester,

N.Y. @ 14:24 hrs. [Please read George Bancroft's HISTORY OF THE U.S.

(1866), Volume IX, pgs 33-34]. Since now that New York has been

determined by you to have been born a State only 12 years later, in

July 1788, at the time of NY's ratification of the 1787 Constitution,

then one should have no choice but to infer that you have now conluded

that the American nation, once considered by you to have been born on

July 2, 1776, somehow [cosmo-genetically, speaking] had been

" Re-born " , on September 17, 1787. [ " Re-born " is a concept

you have

already used recently in another context.]. The logic of your

position is inescapable. [Actually, I don't think that one needs

necessarily resort to the concept of metempsychosis to explain this

process. But you imply undoubtedly (however unintentionally) that

July 2 ,1776, at least, has become in your estimation a pre-natal

moment in the birth of the American States

>

> Don't get me wrong. Your change of mind is a quite

defensible;

the rationale that you have adopted clearly does 'work', if that is

your intention. But do you have the courage to face up to the

implications of your own choice of rationale ? Because, if you

persist in the belief that the United States of America was born on

July 2, 1776, but all 50 States comprising this Union were born in

later years, starting in late 1787 with Delaware, then you will find

yourself in the embrace of one very glaring contradiction, the

implications of which need no elaboration just now; for they are

obvious. And the resort to an empirical defense of this

embrace-in-contradiction will not help.

>

> I have offered you what amounts to the content of an exit

strategy

in my previous post. Since you didn't act on it, so be it; however,

my inferences summarized already shall remain difficult if not

impossible to dispute, without some chagrin on your side.

>

> In my humble estimation, you appear to have painted yourself

into

a corner with the U.S. State charts by not addressing first the

question of the foundation radix for the nation State. In order to

persist with your line of assessment, it necessarily follows that the

U.S.A.-qua-bodypolitic radix of July 2, 1776 was but a pre-natal

conception moment for the American nation State's birth more than 11

years later, and the radix for which necessarily now becomes:

SEPTEMBER 17, 1787, Philadelphia. And after long study going back 2

years, I may add in further detail: @ 15:28:02 hrs, (Lahiri)

Ascendent = 07:23 Capricorn, MC = 00:13 Scorpio, Luna = 16:00 Scorpio.

 

>

> Co-incidentally, I've worked abit with a western sidereal

astrologer who has a keen interest in the U.S. Constitution.

Consistent with the results of our efforts, consider 15:28:02 hrs my

voted rectified time moment for this historic event. And read

Catherine Drinker Bowen's MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA, pg 262, for the

historical accuracy of this rectified time moment.

 

>

> I particularly like the radix of Sept 17, 1787: BECAUSE [01]

the

Lagna @ 7:23 Capricorn is in the very same exact position of the Moon

on July 2, 1776, @ 16:48:05 hrs [Your rectified time, Jorge]. And

[02]: the 1787 Moon @ 16:00 Scorpio is in the very same sign &

degree

as the Lagna of your 1776 chart, which is 15:30 Scorpio.

>

> Thanks for the fine work, by your efforts I'm now convinced

that

the U.S.A as a nation State was conceived July 2, 1776 @ 16:48:05;

then born on September 17, 1787 @ 15:28:02.

>

> Cheers & Thanks, John

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release 03.04.2006

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release 03.04.2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release 03.04.2006

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/301 - Release 04.04.2006