|
New Posts Added on Usurpation starting at New Federalist Paper #12, etc. Scroll down please!
|
|
Radio: Debate On Article V, The Call For A Convention Of The States:
The fight is on folks and the fear mongers are everywhere. That is a good sign if we stay active and post the truth all over the web. We are the safest and most easily explained to restore States rights and power and to make DC small and weak except for defense.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/23/radio-debate-on-article-v-the-call-for-a-convention-of-the-states/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=0249bec2b8-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-0249bec2b8-83785165
We identify ourselves as Classic Liberals.
A Classic Liberal believes in - Everything our Founders - Framers and Ratifiers stood for....Ethics, Morals, Beliefs, Individualism, Intents, Purpose and Inalienable Rights.
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.
*It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy.
*Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, the contradictory theories of natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.
*Classical liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government
*and, adopting Thomas Hobbes's theory of government, they believed government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism starting below)
We join in the cause of Liberty. We have no political or private affiliation, sponsorship, or loyalty that belongs to any other national organization. We are all independent entities chosen to join together as the Framers that founded our Nation did so many decades ago, in the cause and in the spirit of the same.
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.
*It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy.
*Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, the contradictory theories of natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.
*Classical liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government
*and, adopting Thomas Hobbes's theory of government, they believed government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism starting below)
We join in the cause of Liberty. We have no political or private affiliation, sponsorship, or loyalty that belongs to any other national organization. We are all independent entities chosen to join together as the Framers that founded our Nation did so many decades ago, in the cause and in the spirit of the same.
Classical liberalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on Liberalism Yellow flag waving.svg
Development
Ideas
Variants
Anarcho-capitalism
Classical
Conservative
Democratic
Green
Liberal feminism
Liberal internationalism
Libertarianism
Market
National
Neoliberalism
Ordoliberalism
Paleoliberalism
Radical centrism
Radicalism
Religious
Secular
Social
Socialist
People
Organizations
Portal icon Liberalism portal
Portal icon Politics portal
Part of a series on
Libertarianism
Origins
Concepts
Schools
Aspects
Related topics
Outline of libertarianism
Libertarianism portal
Liberalism portal
Part of a series on
Individualism
Topics and concepts
Thinkers
Philosophies
Anarchism
Anarcho-capitalism
Classical liberalism
Egoist anarchism
Ethical egoism
Existentialism
Hedonism
Humanism
Individualist anarchism
Left-libertarianism
Left-wing market anarchism
Liberalism
Libertarianism
Libertarian socialism
Minarchism
Mutualism
Objectivism
Right libertarianism
Social anarchism
Voluntaryism
Principal concerns
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]
In the early 20th century, liberals split on several issues, and particularly in America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals.
Contents
1 Meaning of the term
2 Evolution of core beliefs
2.1 Hayek's typology of beliefs
3 History
4 Intellectual sources
4.1 John Locke
4.2 Adam Smith
4.3 Say, Malthus, and Ricardo
4.4 Utilitarianism
5 Political economy
6 Free trade and world peace
7 Relationship to modern liberalism
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
Meaning of the term
In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[6]
The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[7] The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century, and some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.[8][9][10]
Evolution of core beliefs
Core beliefs of classical liberals included new ideas—which departed from both the older conservative idea of society as a family and from later sociological concept of society as complex set of social networks—that individuals were "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic"[11] and that society was no more than the sum of its individual members.[12]
These beliefs were complemented by a belief that "labour", i.e. individuals without capital, can only be motivated by fear of hunger and by a reward, while "men of higher rank" can be motivated by ambition, as well.[citation needed] This led politicians at the time to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance, because classical liberals believed in "an unfettered market" as the mechanism that will most efficiently lead to a nation's wealth. Adopting Thomas Malthus's population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, as they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[13]
Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labour and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organised efficiently to meet consumer demand.[14]
Drawing on selected ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that all individuals are able to equally freely pursue their own economic self-interest, without government direction, serving the common good.[15] They were critical of welfare state[16] as interfering in a free market. They criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights,[17] while they accepted big corporations' rights being pursued at the expense of inequality of bargaining power noted by Adam Smith:[18]
A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
It was not until emergence of social liberalism that child labour was forbidden, minimum standards of worker safety were introduced, a minimum wage and old age pensions were established, and financial institutions regulations with the goal of fighting cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels, were introduced. They were met by classical liberalism as an unjust interference of the state.[19] So called slim state was argued for, instead, serving only the following functions:
protection against foreign invaders, extended to include protection of overseas markets through armed intervention,
protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts and the suppression of trade unions and the Chartist movement,
building and maintaining public institutions, and
"public works" that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services.[20]
They believed that rights are of a negative nature which require other individuals (and governments) to refrain from interfering with free market, whereas social liberalism believes labour has a right to be provided with certain benefits or services via taxes paid by corporations.[21]
Core beliefs of classical liberals did not necessarily include democracy where law is made by majority vote by citizens, because "there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law."[22] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that, in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...."[23]
Hayek's typology of beliefs
Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the "British tradition" and the "French tradition". Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law, and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Rousseau, Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Constant and Tocqueville as belonging to the "British tradition" and the British Thomas Hobbes, Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the "French tradition".[24] Hayek also rejected the label laissez faire as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume, Smith and Burke.
Read More....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on Liberalism Yellow flag waving.svg
Development
Ideas
Variants
Anarcho-capitalism
Classical
Conservative
Democratic
Green
Liberal feminism
Liberal internationalism
Libertarianism
Market
National
Neoliberalism
Ordoliberalism
Paleoliberalism
Radical centrism
Radicalism
Religious
Secular
Social
Socialist
People
Organizations
Portal icon Liberalism portal
Portal icon Politics portal
Part of a series on
Libertarianism
Origins
Concepts
Schools
Aspects
Related topics
Outline of libertarianism
Libertarianism portal
Liberalism portal
Part of a series on
Individualism
Topics and concepts
Thinkers
Philosophies
Anarchism
Anarcho-capitalism
Classical liberalism
Egoist anarchism
Ethical egoism
Existentialism
Hedonism
Humanism
Individualist anarchism
Left-libertarianism
Left-wing market anarchism
Liberalism
Libertarianism
Libertarian socialism
Minarchism
Mutualism
Objectivism
Right libertarianism
Social anarchism
Voluntaryism
Principal concerns
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]
In the early 20th century, liberals split on several issues, and particularly in America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals.
Contents
1 Meaning of the term
2 Evolution of core beliefs
2.1 Hayek's typology of beliefs
3 History
4 Intellectual sources
4.1 John Locke
4.2 Adam Smith
4.3 Say, Malthus, and Ricardo
4.4 Utilitarianism
5 Political economy
6 Free trade and world peace
7 Relationship to modern liberalism
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
Meaning of the term
In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[6]
The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[7] The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century, and some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.[8][9][10]
Evolution of core beliefs
Core beliefs of classical liberals included new ideas—which departed from both the older conservative idea of society as a family and from later sociological concept of society as complex set of social networks—that individuals were "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic"[11] and that society was no more than the sum of its individual members.[12]
These beliefs were complemented by a belief that "labour", i.e. individuals without capital, can only be motivated by fear of hunger and by a reward, while "men of higher rank" can be motivated by ambition, as well.[citation needed] This led politicians at the time to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance, because classical liberals believed in "an unfettered market" as the mechanism that will most efficiently lead to a nation's wealth. Adopting Thomas Malthus's population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, as they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[13]
Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labour and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organised efficiently to meet consumer demand.[14]
Drawing on selected ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that all individuals are able to equally freely pursue their own economic self-interest, without government direction, serving the common good.[15] They were critical of welfare state[16] as interfering in a free market. They criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights,[17] while they accepted big corporations' rights being pursued at the expense of inequality of bargaining power noted by Adam Smith:[18]
A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
It was not until emergence of social liberalism that child labour was forbidden, minimum standards of worker safety were introduced, a minimum wage and old age pensions were established, and financial institutions regulations with the goal of fighting cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels, were introduced. They were met by classical liberalism as an unjust interference of the state.[19] So called slim state was argued for, instead, serving only the following functions:
protection against foreign invaders, extended to include protection of overseas markets through armed intervention,
protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts and the suppression of trade unions and the Chartist movement,
building and maintaining public institutions, and
"public works" that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services.[20]
They believed that rights are of a negative nature which require other individuals (and governments) to refrain from interfering with free market, whereas social liberalism believes labour has a right to be provided with certain benefits or services via taxes paid by corporations.[21]
Core beliefs of classical liberals did not necessarily include democracy where law is made by majority vote by citizens, because "there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law."[22] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that, in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...."[23]
Hayek's typology of beliefs
Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the "British tradition" and the "French tradition". Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law, and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Rousseau, Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Constant and Tocqueville as belonging to the "British tradition" and the British Thomas Hobbes, Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the "French tradition".[24] Hayek also rejected the label laissez faire as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume, Smith and Burke.
Read More....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Book Review: 'The Classical Liberal Constitution,' by Richard A. EpsteinOur understanding of the Constitution lost its way when we embraced the idea that rights are created by a benevolent state.
By JOHN O. MCGINNIS
March 23, 2014 4:57 p.m. ET
Over the past three decades, Richard A. Epstein has repeatedly argued—with analytical rigor and astonishing erudition—that governments govern best when they limit their actions to protecting liberty and property. He is perhaps best known for "Takings," his 1995 book on the losses that regulations impose on property owners. Of late, he has exposed the flaws of a government-administered health system.
In "The Classical Liberal Constitution," Mr. Epstein takes up the political logic of our fundamental law. The Constitution, he says, reflects above all John Locke's insistence on protecting natural rights—rights that we possess simply by virtue of our humanity. Their protection takes concrete form in the Constitution by restricting the federal government to specific, freedom-advancing and property-protecting tasks, such as establishing a procedurally fair justice system, minting money as a stable repository of value, preserving a national trade zone among the states, and, not least, guarding the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Epstein believes that constitutional law lost its way when it began to embrace a Progressive vision, according to which rights are created by a supposedly benevolent state. Starting especially with the New Deal legislation of the 1930s, the federal government has passed laws that redistribute wealth, water-down procedural protections for property, and dictate the relations between employers and employees. The premise of such laws is that government should establish a pattern of social justice. By such logic, the government may declare rights that are in no way natural (like the right to an old-age pension) and remove others that are fundamental (like freedom of association).
The antidote, for Mr. Epstein, is a reassertion of liberal principle aimed at helping individuals realize joint prosperity through trade and contract. In "The Classical Liberal Constitution," he interprets provisions that are often murky in their application, like the First Amendment's prohibition of laws "respecting an Establishment of religion." Here he rejects a strict separation of church and state to make room for religion in the public sphere, on the grounds that accommodating many faiths provides mutual gains—a hallmark of classical liberalism.
By JOHN O. MCGINNIS
March 23, 2014 4:57 p.m. ET
Over the past three decades, Richard A. Epstein has repeatedly argued—with analytical rigor and astonishing erudition—that governments govern best when they limit their actions to protecting liberty and property. He is perhaps best known for "Takings," his 1995 book on the losses that regulations impose on property owners. Of late, he has exposed the flaws of a government-administered health system.
In "The Classical Liberal Constitution," Mr. Epstein takes up the political logic of our fundamental law. The Constitution, he says, reflects above all John Locke's insistence on protecting natural rights—rights that we possess simply by virtue of our humanity. Their protection takes concrete form in the Constitution by restricting the federal government to specific, freedom-advancing and property-protecting tasks, such as establishing a procedurally fair justice system, minting money as a stable repository of value, preserving a national trade zone among the states, and, not least, guarding the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Epstein believes that constitutional law lost its way when it began to embrace a Progressive vision, according to which rights are created by a supposedly benevolent state. Starting especially with the New Deal legislation of the 1930s, the federal government has passed laws that redistribute wealth, water-down procedural protections for property, and dictate the relations between employers and employees. The premise of such laws is that government should establish a pattern of social justice. By such logic, the government may declare rights that are in no way natural (like the right to an old-age pension) and remove others that are fundamental (like freedom of association).
The antidote, for Mr. Epstein, is a reassertion of liberal principle aimed at helping individuals realize joint prosperity through trade and contract. In "The Classical Liberal Constitution," he interprets provisions that are often murky in their application, like the First Amendment's prohibition of laws "respecting an Establishment of religion." Here he rejects a strict separation of church and state to make room for religion in the public sphere, on the grounds that accommodating many faiths provides mutual gains—a hallmark of classical liberalism.
Book Review: 'The Classical Liberal Constitution,' by Richard A. Epstein
Our understanding of the Constitution lost its way when we embraced the idea that rights are created by a benevolent state.
By JOHN O. MCGINNIS
March 23, 2014 4:57 p.m. ET
Over the past three decades, Richard A. Epstein has repeatedly argued—with analytical rigor and astonishing erudition—that governments govern best when they limit their actions to protecting liberty and property. He is perhaps best known for "Takings," his 1995 book on the losses that regulations impose on property owners. Of late, he has exposed the flaws of a government-administered health system.
In "The Classical Liberal Constitution," Mr. Epstein takes up the political logic of our fundamental law. The Constitution, he says, reflects above all John Locke's insistence on protecting natural rights—rights that we possess simply by virtue of our humanity. Their protection takes concrete form in the Constitution by restricting the federal government to specific, freedom-advancing and property-protecting tasks, such as establishing a procedurally fair justice system, minting money as a stable repository of value, preserving a national trade zone among the states, and, not least, guarding the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Epstein believes that constitutional law lost its way when it began to embrace a Progressive vision, according to which rights are created by a supposedly benevolent state. Starting especially with the New Deal legislation of the 1930s, the federal government has passed laws that redistribute wealth, water-down procedural protections for property, and dictate the relations between employers and employees. The premise of such laws is that government should establish a pattern of social justice. By such logic, the government may declare rights that are in no way natural (like the right to an old-age pension) and remove others that are fundamental (like freedom of association).
The antidote, for Mr. Epstein, is a reassertion of liberal principle aimed at helping individuals realize joint prosperity through trade and contract. In "The Classical Liberal Constitution," he interprets provisions that are often murky in their application, like the First Amendment's prohibition of laws "respecting an Establishment of religion." Here he rejects a strict separation of church and state to make room for religion in the public sphere, on the grounds that accommodating many faiths provides mutual gains—a hallmark of classical liberalism.
THE CLASSICAL LIBERAL CONSTITUTIONBy Richard A. Epstein
(Harvard, 684 pages, $49.95)
He also uses liberal principle to judge which Supreme Court precedents should be retained and which discarded. He would keep the precedents that vindicate liberty, like protecting a right to contraception, even if this particular right cannot be rooted in the Constitution's text. Similarly, he acknowledges that the Constitution did not foresee judicial supremacy—the courts' power to bind the other branches of government by its precedents. But he applauds judicial supremacy because, in his view, it generally restrains the overweening state.
In its ambition and range, "The Classical Liberal Constitution" is comparable with John Hart Ely's magisterial "Democracy and Distrust" (1980). Just as Ely claimed that representative government is the objective that unlocks the meaning of the Constitution's disparate clauses and amendments, Mr. Epstein claims to discover the interpretive key in classical liberalism—in the call for a limited government protecting natural rights.
To be sure, the Framers were very much aware of Locke, and liberalism is central to the Constitution's meaning. But Mr. Epstein never shows that Locke's liberalism tracks his own or that it was the dominant influence on the Framers. Other influences included Montesquieu, who stressed a balance of powers, and some of the Framers adhered to the civic-republican tradition, whereby one role of government was to cultivate virtue. What is more, the Constitution reflects the lived experience of Americans and their forebears. The Bill of Rights derives in part from quarrels among English religious sects and the abuses of the Star Chamber. The very wording of the Bill of Rights often expresses this long history.
A case in point is the Second Amendment, which declares: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court recently declared that the amendment protects the right of citizens in the District of Columbia to possess a handgun in their home. Mr. Epstein rejects this decision on the grounds that the District is not a "state." But the amendment's preamble, in which the phrase "a free State" appears, announces a political proposition. It thus likely refers to political entities in general, not specific jurisdictions, and Mr. Epstein provides no historical or scholarly support for his novel suggestion.
Mr. Epstein is at its strongest when he combines his analytical powers with the historical research of others, as he does when he discusses the clause that gives Congress the authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" to executing the powers enumerated in the Constitution. This clause has been used over and over again to expand the authority of the federal government. Mr. Epstein provides evidence that the Framers would not have considered legislation "proper" if it exercised an unenumerated power of substantial scope. It is one thing for the government to criminalize stealing the mail as part of its authority to establish post offices. It is quite another for it to penalize citizens for not participating in a market, as it did when it required individuals to buy insurance as part of its regulation of commerce under the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Epstein's argument here is based on historical understanding as well as principle.
The Constitution, as Mr. Epstein argues, provides us with rights to individual liberty and property, but it also gives us the right of collective self-government. While there will never be an easy synthesis of both inheritances, he vividly shows us how constitutional law would look if we gave priority to individual rights—something that we have not done for almost a century.
Mr. McGinnis is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
Our understanding of the Constitution lost its way when we embraced the idea that rights are created by a benevolent state.
By JOHN O. MCGINNIS
March 23, 2014 4:57 p.m. ET
Over the past three decades, Richard A. Epstein has repeatedly argued—with analytical rigor and astonishing erudition—that governments govern best when they limit their actions to protecting liberty and property. He is perhaps best known for "Takings," his 1995 book on the losses that regulations impose on property owners. Of late, he has exposed the flaws of a government-administered health system.
In "The Classical Liberal Constitution," Mr. Epstein takes up the political logic of our fundamental law. The Constitution, he says, reflects above all John Locke's insistence on protecting natural rights—rights that we possess simply by virtue of our humanity. Their protection takes concrete form in the Constitution by restricting the federal government to specific, freedom-advancing and property-protecting tasks, such as establishing a procedurally fair justice system, minting money as a stable repository of value, preserving a national trade zone among the states, and, not least, guarding the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Epstein believes that constitutional law lost its way when it began to embrace a Progressive vision, according to which rights are created by a supposedly benevolent state. Starting especially with the New Deal legislation of the 1930s, the federal government has passed laws that redistribute wealth, water-down procedural protections for property, and dictate the relations between employers and employees. The premise of such laws is that government should establish a pattern of social justice. By such logic, the government may declare rights that are in no way natural (like the right to an old-age pension) and remove others that are fundamental (like freedom of association).
The antidote, for Mr. Epstein, is a reassertion of liberal principle aimed at helping individuals realize joint prosperity through trade and contract. In "The Classical Liberal Constitution," he interprets provisions that are often murky in their application, like the First Amendment's prohibition of laws "respecting an Establishment of religion." Here he rejects a strict separation of church and state to make room for religion in the public sphere, on the grounds that accommodating many faiths provides mutual gains—a hallmark of classical liberalism.
THE CLASSICAL LIBERAL CONSTITUTIONBy Richard A. Epstein
(Harvard, 684 pages, $49.95)
He also uses liberal principle to judge which Supreme Court precedents should be retained and which discarded. He would keep the precedents that vindicate liberty, like protecting a right to contraception, even if this particular right cannot be rooted in the Constitution's text. Similarly, he acknowledges that the Constitution did not foresee judicial supremacy—the courts' power to bind the other branches of government by its precedents. But he applauds judicial supremacy because, in his view, it generally restrains the overweening state.
In its ambition and range, "The Classical Liberal Constitution" is comparable with John Hart Ely's magisterial "Democracy and Distrust" (1980). Just as Ely claimed that representative government is the objective that unlocks the meaning of the Constitution's disparate clauses and amendments, Mr. Epstein claims to discover the interpretive key in classical liberalism—in the call for a limited government protecting natural rights.
To be sure, the Framers were very much aware of Locke, and liberalism is central to the Constitution's meaning. But Mr. Epstein never shows that Locke's liberalism tracks his own or that it was the dominant influence on the Framers. Other influences included Montesquieu, who stressed a balance of powers, and some of the Framers adhered to the civic-republican tradition, whereby one role of government was to cultivate virtue. What is more, the Constitution reflects the lived experience of Americans and their forebears. The Bill of Rights derives in part from quarrels among English religious sects and the abuses of the Star Chamber. The very wording of the Bill of Rights often expresses this long history.
A case in point is the Second Amendment, which declares: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court recently declared that the amendment protects the right of citizens in the District of Columbia to possess a handgun in their home. Mr. Epstein rejects this decision on the grounds that the District is not a "state." But the amendment's preamble, in which the phrase "a free State" appears, announces a political proposition. It thus likely refers to political entities in general, not specific jurisdictions, and Mr. Epstein provides no historical or scholarly support for his novel suggestion.
Mr. Epstein is at its strongest when he combines his analytical powers with the historical research of others, as he does when he discusses the clause that gives Congress the authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" to executing the powers enumerated in the Constitution. This clause has been used over and over again to expand the authority of the federal government. Mr. Epstein provides evidence that the Framers would not have considered legislation "proper" if it exercised an unenumerated power of substantial scope. It is one thing for the government to criminalize stealing the mail as part of its authority to establish post offices. It is quite another for it to penalize citizens for not participating in a market, as it did when it required individuals to buy insurance as part of its regulation of commerce under the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Epstein's argument here is based on historical understanding as well as principle.
The Constitution, as Mr. Epstein argues, provides us with rights to individual liberty and property, but it also gives us the right of collective self-government. While there will never be an easy synthesis of both inheritances, he vividly shows us how constitutional law would look if we gave priority to individual rights—something that we have not done for almost a century.
Mr. McGinnis is a professor of law at Northwestern University.
The Man Who Made Libertarians Wrong About the Constitution
By Cass R. Sunstein
How Richard Epstein's highly influential, highly politicized scholarship cemented Tea Party dogma
The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government by Richard A. Epstein (Harvard University Press)
When I joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School in 1981, there were two defining figures: Richard Posner and Richard Epstein. Posner was the world’s most important voice in the emerging field of “law and economics.” At the time he believed that courts should “maximize wealth.” Epstein, a defender of personal autonomy with strong libertarian inclinations, was Posner’s most vocal critic. At the University of Chicago Law School lunch table, where the faculty ate four times each week, the two had some fierce struggles. Tempers flared. No one who was there will forget those lunches, which sometimes seemed like a form of combat.
Neither Epstein nor Posner had a lot to say about constitutional law; much of their focus was on private law and in particular on the law of torts. Posner had made his reputation with a famous article called “A Theory of Negligence,” in which he argued that under the common law, people who harmed others were held liable, and had to pay damages, only if the benefits of taking precautions outweighed the costs. In an article called “A Theory of Strict Liability,” Epstein took a different view. He argued that if one person harmed another, he had to pay damages, even if the benefits of taking precautions did not outweigh the costs. Epstein made a number of economic arguments, suggesting that strict liability was preferable on economic grounds. But it was clear that he was motivated, in significant part, by a concern for personal autonomy. Epstein seemed to think that if someone hurts you, he has to pay you.
Epstein also produced a brilliant essay on the problem of “nuisance.” In law, a nuisance arises when someone creates an unreasonable interference with people’s enjoyment of their property. Loud noises or noxious fumes can create a nuisance. Epstein explored, and had evident sympathy for, a simple intuitive judgment about corrective justice: if people are injuring you, they have to stop. But he insisted that the real world complicates the use of that judgment. People face various barriers to initiating lawsuits, and when many people are injured by an action, as in the case of pollution, the private law system may be inadequate. But in Epstein’s view, we should always keep in mind the central goals of that system, one of which is to render “to each person whatever redress is required because of the violation of his rights by another.” He contended that it “is possible, both in the pollution cases and in the others that we have considered, to trace the heritage of private law concepts into problems which, solely because of their bulk and unwieldiness, have become the proper subject of the public law.”
In the early 1980s, Epstein was an expert on the law of tort, property, and contract; he did not teach constitutional law. But in view of his work on nuisance, his libertarian inclinations, and his deep skepticism about regulation and regulators, he became acutely interested in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which forbids the federal government from taking people’s property except for “public use” and on provision of just compensation. In 1985, he published a book called Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, which asserted that a great deal of what is done by modern governments is an unconstitutional “taking.” In Epstein’s view, it was worth wondering whether regulations that purport to help disadvantaged people—such as minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws—should be counted as constitutionally dubious “takings.” “It will be said that my position invalidates much of the twentieth-century legislation, and so it does,” Epstein remarked. “But does that make the position wrong in principle?”
Many constitutional law scholars thought that Epstein’s book was eccentric, but it struck a chord. In fact it became a bit of a sensation, at least in libertarian circles. During the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, Joseph Biden, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed to Epstein’s book and sharply criticized it. Epstein followed that book with a series of ambitious academic articles and books, essentially arguing that significant parts of the New Deal and the Great Society were unconstitutional. In his view, much of what modern government does is inconsistent with the constitutional plan. Not by the way, Epstein wrote a whole book contending that in key respects, contemporary civil rights legislation is a very bad idea, at least insofar as it forbids discrimination by private companies, who should generally be entitled to make their own free choices.
Most constitutional scholars continue to think that Epstein’s views are eccentric, but his views have had a large influence. Epstein is far too independent-minded to lead or follow any ideological movement, but if Tea Party constitutionalism has academic roots, or a canonical set of texts, they consist of Epstein’s writings. More than anyone else, he has elaborated the view that our Constitution is libertarian, in the sense that it sharply restricts the power of the national government, and against both the nation and the states, creates strong rights-based protections of private property and freedom of contract.
That view hardly commands a consensus, but it is not limited to the law schools. In a speech delivered in several places and ultimately published in the Cato Supreme Court Review, a highly respected judge, Douglas Ginsburg of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote that federal judges were faithful to the Constitution until the 1930s, when “the wheels began to come off.” Among other things, Judge Ginsburg objected that the Court has “blinked away” central provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the Takings Clause, which, he lamented, has been read to provide “no protection against a regulation that deprives the nominal owner of most of the economic value of their property.”
Ginsburg’s colleague, Judge Janis Rogers Brown, has spoken in even stronger terms. She asserts that the New Deal “inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality.” For Judge Brown, changing interpretations in the 1930s “consumed much of the classical conception of the Constitution.” In this respect, Judge Brown sounds a lot like Epstein, and she is not the only judge who does.
Within the Republican Party we can sometimes find a similar view, especially among “movement” conservatives, often associated with the Tea Party, with prominent politicians and ordinary citizens confidently asserting large claims about the Constitution—and notwithstanding current law, the supposed unconstitutionality of much of what federal and state governments now do. Everyone knows who Rand Paul’s father is, but in an intellectual sense it is Richard Epstein who is his daddy.
Read more....http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117619/classical-liberal-constitution-richard-epstein-reviewed
How Richard Epstein's highly influential, highly politicized scholarship cemented Tea Party dogma
The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government by Richard A. Epstein (Harvard University Press)
When I joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School in 1981, there were two defining figures: Richard Posner and Richard Epstein. Posner was the world’s most important voice in the emerging field of “law and economics.” At the time he believed that courts should “maximize wealth.” Epstein, a defender of personal autonomy with strong libertarian inclinations, was Posner’s most vocal critic. At the University of Chicago Law School lunch table, where the faculty ate four times each week, the two had some fierce struggles. Tempers flared. No one who was there will forget those lunches, which sometimes seemed like a form of combat.
Neither Epstein nor Posner had a lot to say about constitutional law; much of their focus was on private law and in particular on the law of torts. Posner had made his reputation with a famous article called “A Theory of Negligence,” in which he argued that under the common law, people who harmed others were held liable, and had to pay damages, only if the benefits of taking precautions outweighed the costs. In an article called “A Theory of Strict Liability,” Epstein took a different view. He argued that if one person harmed another, he had to pay damages, even if the benefits of taking precautions did not outweigh the costs. Epstein made a number of economic arguments, suggesting that strict liability was preferable on economic grounds. But it was clear that he was motivated, in significant part, by a concern for personal autonomy. Epstein seemed to think that if someone hurts you, he has to pay you.
Epstein also produced a brilliant essay on the problem of “nuisance.” In law, a nuisance arises when someone creates an unreasonable interference with people’s enjoyment of their property. Loud noises or noxious fumes can create a nuisance. Epstein explored, and had evident sympathy for, a simple intuitive judgment about corrective justice: if people are injuring you, they have to stop. But he insisted that the real world complicates the use of that judgment. People face various barriers to initiating lawsuits, and when many people are injured by an action, as in the case of pollution, the private law system may be inadequate. But in Epstein’s view, we should always keep in mind the central goals of that system, one of which is to render “to each person whatever redress is required because of the violation of his rights by another.” He contended that it “is possible, both in the pollution cases and in the others that we have considered, to trace the heritage of private law concepts into problems which, solely because of their bulk and unwieldiness, have become the proper subject of the public law.”
In the early 1980s, Epstein was an expert on the law of tort, property, and contract; he did not teach constitutional law. But in view of his work on nuisance, his libertarian inclinations, and his deep skepticism about regulation and regulators, he became acutely interested in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which forbids the federal government from taking people’s property except for “public use” and on provision of just compensation. In 1985, he published a book called Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, which asserted that a great deal of what is done by modern governments is an unconstitutional “taking.” In Epstein’s view, it was worth wondering whether regulations that purport to help disadvantaged people—such as minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws—should be counted as constitutionally dubious “takings.” “It will be said that my position invalidates much of the twentieth-century legislation, and so it does,” Epstein remarked. “But does that make the position wrong in principle?”
Many constitutional law scholars thought that Epstein’s book was eccentric, but it struck a chord. In fact it became a bit of a sensation, at least in libertarian circles. During the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, Joseph Biden, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pointed to Epstein’s book and sharply criticized it. Epstein followed that book with a series of ambitious academic articles and books, essentially arguing that significant parts of the New Deal and the Great Society were unconstitutional. In his view, much of what modern government does is inconsistent with the constitutional plan. Not by the way, Epstein wrote a whole book contending that in key respects, contemporary civil rights legislation is a very bad idea, at least insofar as it forbids discrimination by private companies, who should generally be entitled to make their own free choices.
Most constitutional scholars continue to think that Epstein’s views are eccentric, but his views have had a large influence. Epstein is far too independent-minded to lead or follow any ideological movement, but if Tea Party constitutionalism has academic roots, or a canonical set of texts, they consist of Epstein’s writings. More than anyone else, he has elaborated the view that our Constitution is libertarian, in the sense that it sharply restricts the power of the national government, and against both the nation and the states, creates strong rights-based protections of private property and freedom of contract.
That view hardly commands a consensus, but it is not limited to the law schools. In a speech delivered in several places and ultimately published in the Cato Supreme Court Review, a highly respected judge, Douglas Ginsburg of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote that federal judges were faithful to the Constitution until the 1930s, when “the wheels began to come off.” Among other things, Judge Ginsburg objected that the Court has “blinked away” central provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the Takings Clause, which, he lamented, has been read to provide “no protection against a regulation that deprives the nominal owner of most of the economic value of their property.”
Ginsburg’s colleague, Judge Janis Rogers Brown, has spoken in even stronger terms. She asserts that the New Deal “inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality.” For Judge Brown, changing interpretations in the 1930s “consumed much of the classical conception of the Constitution.” In this respect, Judge Brown sounds a lot like Epstein, and she is not the only judge who does.
Within the Republican Party we can sometimes find a similar view, especially among “movement” conservatives, often associated with the Tea Party, with prominent politicians and ordinary citizens confidently asserting large claims about the Constitution—and notwithstanding current law, the supposed unconstitutionality of much of what federal and state governments now do. Everyone knows who Rand Paul’s father is, but in an intellectual sense it is Richard Epstein who is his daddy.
Read more....http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117619/classical-liberal-constitution-richard-epstein-reviewed
Introduction
We begin an inspired and necessary Project.
A Brief Introduction and Short Summary
The Who-What-When-Where and Why -
The Original Federalist Papers
The Authors were separate and unique individuals. With lives-opinions-talents-experiences -imperfections were completely unique to themselves. But working in concert toward the greatest good, these personalities melded into one.
They titled it 'Publius'...a Father of Liberty - whose heart and mind – VOICE - was the composite of their own...and many throughout history have believed they were the instrument through which a Divine work was accomplished.
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays arguing in support of the United States Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the authors behind the pieces, and the three men wrote collectively under the name of Publius.
Seventy-seven of the essays were published as a series in The Independent Journal, The New York Packet, and The Daily Advertiser between October of 1787 and August 1788. They weren't originally known as the "Federalist Papers," but just "The Federalist." The final 8 were added in after.
Alexander Hamilton, Portrait by John Trumbull
At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret. It wasn't until Hamilton's death in 1804 that a list crediting him as one of the authors became public. It claimed fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton. Many of these would be disputed by Madison later on, who had actually written a few of the articles attributed to Hamilton.
Once the Federal Convention sent the Constitution to the Confederation Congress in 1787, the document became the target of criticism from its opponents. Hamilton, a firm believer in the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 1 that the series would "endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, which may seem to have any claim to your attention." ~ Publius
Alexander Hamilton was the force behind the project, and was responsible for recruiting James Madison and John Jay to write with him as Publius. Two others were considered, Gouverneur Morris and William Duer. Morris rejected the offer, and Hamilton didn't like Duer's work. Even still, Duer managed to publish three articles in defense of the Constitution under the name Philo-Publius, or "Friend of Publius."
Hamilton chose "Publius" as the pseudonym under which the series would be written, in honor of the great Roman Publius Valerius Publicola. The original Publius is credited with being instrumental in the founding of the Roman Republic. Hamilton thought he would be again with the founding of the American Republic.
He turned out to be right.
In contrast to the Articles, (of Confederation) which basically codified what the Second Continental Congress was already doing, the Constitution provides a plan for an ideal form of government that can anticipate future changes and growth. Additionally, the Articles were not presented to the people for ratification, so no public justification was required to persuade them in favor of the document. The Articles were approved by the Congress that designed them and then sent to state legislatures for ratification. The public opinion, outside of the delegates to state legislatures, did not engage in the debate over acceptance of the Articles.
The Federalist sets out to persuade readers about the importance of their voice in ratifying the Constitution by appealing to their sense of patriotism and by reminding them of their own powers to judge upon the validity of the arguments. The authors do so by providing logical arguments based on historical evidence, the lived experience of Americans and by references to political philosophers."
In other words....they wanted "The People" to understand and have an active voice and role in their government.
For the new students of Constitutional history.
There were two schools of thought during the construction and ratification of the constitution. The Federalist and the Anti-federalist. The Federalist believed in a limited Federal Government but all inclusive in what was granted to it by Article 1 Section 8. The anti-federalist saw too much authority surrender to the federal structure robbing the individual and State sovereignty. The link below will take you to a PDF file of the Anti-Federalist papers which were written to counter the Federalist Papers. Both sides play a major role in the founding of the Constitution and the adaption of the Bill of Rights. These two writings play directly into proof that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. These two writings early on in our history played a very important part in Court dissensions on what was Constitutional and what was not. Now there is probably not a lawyer or judge who gives them the slightest notice. These two sides did not detract from the Constitution. The Constitution still stands as written but the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were added because of the disagreements between the two sides.
We need to go back a little in history. The 13 colonies were independent entities under British rule. British law kept them separate and even instigated competition between them. That mindset stayed with them even through the writing of the Declaration and the adoption of the Articles of Confederation our first Government. They were forbidden by law to undergo any kind of joint ventures. When they did meet during (what became known as) the Continental Congress that had been forbidden all along. The colonies had deep feelings about their individual sovereignty and that was the base of all problems up to and including the writing of the Constitution. During the War, goods and services promised by individual colonies/states never materialized. States not participating in the war at the time saw no need to provide funds or goods. Those who had the war on their soil were leached dry supporting it. That became the reason to see a need for a stronger Federal Structure. The challenge was in how to do it but yet balance it so States could maintain their Sovereignty but still have a coalition/union of all.
HERE ARE LINKS TO THE COMPLETE SET OF BOTH PAPERS:
(Both series are also featured here on our site under Basic Documents)
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers
http://freedomsadvocate.com/files/ref/TheAntiFederalistPapers.pdf
The purpose of the original Federalist papers, and the anti-Federal papers, were to address the same issues we are addressing once again in our Country today. What created 'U.S.' as a Nation with an inspired and perfect government, with Free and Participating Citizens - is The Constitution of the United States of America.
We must strive to do all we can to RESTORE - and included in that result - gain the Liberties lost - that can RESTORE and then KEEP THE REPUBLIC.
The 28th Amendment is the best restoration of the Constitution that we can envision. It is the end of the amendments that have brought Lady Liberty to her knees.
Time is short and the task is large, but we have chosen to be the representatives of the change that needs to come to this Land. We have joined together from all walks of life and territories of this Nation, to accomplish this task. Our goal has always been, as we have defined it, to educate and sell the concept of RESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.
'A PEOPLE WHO MEAN TO BE THEIR OWN GOVERNORS MUST ARM THEMSELVES WITH THE POWER WHICH KNOWLEDGE GIVES'.
We are proud to introduce our introductory essays to this series of papers. We shall title them 'THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS', authored by Pubius 2013.
A Brief Introduction and Short Summary
The Who-What-When-Where and Why -
The Original Federalist Papers
The Authors were separate and unique individuals. With lives-opinions-talents-experiences -imperfections were completely unique to themselves. But working in concert toward the greatest good, these personalities melded into one.
They titled it 'Publius'...a Father of Liberty - whose heart and mind – VOICE - was the composite of their own...and many throughout history have believed they were the instrument through which a Divine work was accomplished.
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays arguing in support of the United States Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the authors behind the pieces, and the three men wrote collectively under the name of Publius.
Seventy-seven of the essays were published as a series in The Independent Journal, The New York Packet, and The Daily Advertiser between October of 1787 and August 1788. They weren't originally known as the "Federalist Papers," but just "The Federalist." The final 8 were added in after.
Alexander Hamilton, Portrait by John Trumbull
At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret. It wasn't until Hamilton's death in 1804 that a list crediting him as one of the authors became public. It claimed fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton. Many of these would be disputed by Madison later on, who had actually written a few of the articles attributed to Hamilton.
Once the Federal Convention sent the Constitution to the Confederation Congress in 1787, the document became the target of criticism from its opponents. Hamilton, a firm believer in the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 1 that the series would "endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, which may seem to have any claim to your attention." ~ Publius
Alexander Hamilton was the force behind the project, and was responsible for recruiting James Madison and John Jay to write with him as Publius. Two others were considered, Gouverneur Morris and William Duer. Morris rejected the offer, and Hamilton didn't like Duer's work. Even still, Duer managed to publish three articles in defense of the Constitution under the name Philo-Publius, or "Friend of Publius."
Hamilton chose "Publius" as the pseudonym under which the series would be written, in honor of the great Roman Publius Valerius Publicola. The original Publius is credited with being instrumental in the founding of the Roman Republic. Hamilton thought he would be again with the founding of the American Republic.
He turned out to be right.
In contrast to the Articles, (of Confederation) which basically codified what the Second Continental Congress was already doing, the Constitution provides a plan for an ideal form of government that can anticipate future changes and growth. Additionally, the Articles were not presented to the people for ratification, so no public justification was required to persuade them in favor of the document. The Articles were approved by the Congress that designed them and then sent to state legislatures for ratification. The public opinion, outside of the delegates to state legislatures, did not engage in the debate over acceptance of the Articles.
The Federalist sets out to persuade readers about the importance of their voice in ratifying the Constitution by appealing to their sense of patriotism and by reminding them of their own powers to judge upon the validity of the arguments. The authors do so by providing logical arguments based on historical evidence, the lived experience of Americans and by references to political philosophers."
In other words....they wanted "The People" to understand and have an active voice and role in their government.
For the new students of Constitutional history.
There were two schools of thought during the construction and ratification of the constitution. The Federalist and the Anti-federalist. The Federalist believed in a limited Federal Government but all inclusive in what was granted to it by Article 1 Section 8. The anti-federalist saw too much authority surrender to the federal structure robbing the individual and State sovereignty. The link below will take you to a PDF file of the Anti-Federalist papers which were written to counter the Federalist Papers. Both sides play a major role in the founding of the Constitution and the adaption of the Bill of Rights. These two writings play directly into proof that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. These two writings early on in our history played a very important part in Court dissensions on what was Constitutional and what was not. Now there is probably not a lawyer or judge who gives them the slightest notice. These two sides did not detract from the Constitution. The Constitution still stands as written but the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were added because of the disagreements between the two sides.
We need to go back a little in history. The 13 colonies were independent entities under British rule. British law kept them separate and even instigated competition between them. That mindset stayed with them even through the writing of the Declaration and the adoption of the Articles of Confederation our first Government. They were forbidden by law to undergo any kind of joint ventures. When they did meet during (what became known as) the Continental Congress that had been forbidden all along. The colonies had deep feelings about their individual sovereignty and that was the base of all problems up to and including the writing of the Constitution. During the War, goods and services promised by individual colonies/states never materialized. States not participating in the war at the time saw no need to provide funds or goods. Those who had the war on their soil were leached dry supporting it. That became the reason to see a need for a stronger Federal Structure. The challenge was in how to do it but yet balance it so States could maintain their Sovereignty but still have a coalition/union of all.
HERE ARE LINKS TO THE COMPLETE SET OF BOTH PAPERS:
(Both series are also featured here on our site under Basic Documents)
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers
http://freedomsadvocate.com/files/ref/TheAntiFederalistPapers.pdf
The purpose of the original Federalist papers, and the anti-Federal papers, were to address the same issues we are addressing once again in our Country today. What created 'U.S.' as a Nation with an inspired and perfect government, with Free and Participating Citizens - is The Constitution of the United States of America.
We must strive to do all we can to RESTORE - and included in that result - gain the Liberties lost - that can RESTORE and then KEEP THE REPUBLIC.
The 28th Amendment is the best restoration of the Constitution that we can envision. It is the end of the amendments that have brought Lady Liberty to her knees.
Time is short and the task is large, but we have chosen to be the representatives of the change that needs to come to this Land. We have joined together from all walks of life and territories of this Nation, to accomplish this task. Our goal has always been, as we have defined it, to educate and sell the concept of RESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.
'A PEOPLE WHO MEAN TO BE THEIR OWN GOVERNORS MUST ARM THEMSELVES WITH THE POWER WHICH KNOWLEDGE GIVES'.
We are proud to introduce our introductory essays to this series of papers. We shall title them 'THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS', authored by Pubius 2013.
The NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS
Dedication
In Service to the Restoration of the Original Constitution of the United States, in Reverence to the Intent and the Architecture of this Nation's government by the Founders and Fathers of this United States, to Address the Usurpations and loss of Liberties By [delete By - should say Of] The People, [then add By ]Returning to the Perfect Design of that government For The People, and to Promote the Method of doing so, Deliberately included in the Original Document - Article V and the Ratification of a 28th Amendment - an action Of The People....we dedicate the writing of the New Federalist Papers.
In Service to the Restoration of the Original Constitution of the United States, in Reverence to the Intent and the Architecture of this Nation's government by the Founders and Fathers of this United States, to Address the Usurpations and loss of Liberties By [delete By - should say Of] The People, [then add By ]Returning to the Perfect Design of that government For The People, and to Promote the Method of doing so, Deliberately included in the Original Document - Article V and the Ratification of a 28th Amendment - an action Of The People....we dedicate the writing of the New Federalist Papers.
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #1
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
Friends, Countrymen, Noble Sons and Daughters...lend me an ear.
We are descended from many a common lineage- that united to become a 'Noble People'. Ordinary People, who rose up in trying times, to do something Extraordinary. They built and fought for - they forged and sacrificed - they created a New and Free Nation.
Let us lift up our bent necks and raise up our downcast eyes to that Vision that still shines before us. Let us hear once again, the ancient rumbling of these who would become giants and created a Stirring in our land? Hear the whisper of their voices raised on a mighty wind of honest words. We MUST hear them and their urgent pleas to Free our vision from the languid ‘fog’.
Wake Up Children! Wake Up! Our Fathers say - No! They shout! - with voices that will not be ignored or silenced by the decades of Human Sleep....Wake Up or you shall surely perish! The 'Fog' of Ignorance and Forgotten Heritage, is a slow-enveloping - foolishly welcomed by some - deliberately hastened by others....Death. You will Lose All that you have been Given, all that you ever Hope to be.
Listen Children! Listen! Immortal Words once shouted in the air 'We are Free'...once again they carry forth and will long be heard - to help us remember, and ask in the same "Are We Still?” Words that were Recorded, words that were made true through Sacrifice and Struggle, they were a Reality once. They are now Threatened by political Erosion and Citizen neglect.
In the illusive Haze we can imagine ourselves lost, but the 'Fog' is a deceiver - it will dance and swirl its changing form - it will darken the light and trick the eyes - it will reach around us until we feel surrounded and faint of determination in any direction...but it is only 'Fog'.
It CANNOT hold us UNLESS we ALLOW IT - it CANNOT blind us Unless we SHUT our eyes or abandon reaching and searching FOR THE LIGHT...it CANNOT reach inside us and TAKE our SPIRIT...if it has indeed bound us...then look at the Fainted Tendrils... we are paralyzed by nothing more than AIR. Our Prison is an illusion that can be shattered by the increasing degree of Patriotic fervor.
Look around us, we are being forced into submission before a throne of our own allowance - to a master of our own election - and has become the enemy of all Free Men. Hands around our Very Throats...reaching to steal the future from our beloved children and grandchildren - Yes, even far-reaching toward our Unborn Children...These fingers are most assuredly closing around the throat of our entire Country - and any Free Future - of every possible imagining - is gasping for air.
Try to swallow each bitter draught and in that struggle - realize...it is Tyranny choking us ...grasp and Tear Loose of the Finger’s clutch!...while we are Still Free - While there is still Greatness to level the Lesser - While we still have the Light that breaks through the 'fog'.
If we accept the Condition of Slave we will live, but it will be a life of Hearts hardened and only faintly beating - leaded feet that dare not step forward, minds that are numbed in languish and who exist just beyond the ability to reason, we will move as pale specters with spirits that are broken and become every slave who has ever bowed low - never to rise again.
There is no bended knee in a Free Nation, and no yoke will be borne by a Free People.
We cannot be enslaved, unless we accept our bondage. We cannot remain ignorant unless we relinquish our minds. We cannot lose our heart unless we sell them away, a valuable trade for empty promises. Our Liberty must not be relegated forever to the annals of time and chronicles yet to be written. It can only happen if We Agree!
Stand Up!!! Fellow Citizens and as the Children of Patriots - We are Not a People who will be Slaves!!!! This 'Fog' is not a forgiving or generous master. See it for what it is. An Unsubstantial cover for the nothingness of Unprincipled and Corrupted Power, anchored to the self-servant, and Empty as a defective vessel.
The mist will eventually lift, it will dissipate - or be blown by yet another wind. If we accept we are subjects of the Unsubstantial. We will be left striving to survive - with that reality - and grasping at the threads of whatever truth remains.
'Fog' is a weather condition; 'fog' is a war, this 'fog'- is of Counterfeit Progress. And 'This' is the war we have chosen to engage - a war which battles for the Soul of our Nation and the Heart and the Minds of a Free people.
A Movement is happening...and the movement is Rising.
It Speaks the Truth.
A Truth....that The 'Foe' believes the dream will die...but we Refuse...not THIS DREAM.
A Truth......that From hands, long laid sleeping, were written words and intentions. Fathers and Mothers who paid the greatest price to purchase a future for this Noble Land - their dreams - that it would one day be filled with their sons and daughters - living free and breathing the air of liberty.
A Truth....that it is our Duty as, The Children of Patriots, to listen with ears that seek the truth...See with Eyes that search beyond the confounding mist...and Appetites that Hunger, for more than the dietary bites of Freedom we still are allowed to taste. Each knowing in our most Basic Humanness - the truth -that only Freedom can feed the Soul.
A Truth....this Movement is Rising. It will strike at that same Putrid air and throw it back against the Tide of Forgotten Memory and the wave of progressive tyranny. It will succeed or it will fail, determined solely by, the Grace of the Highest Intervention and the Conviction - Dedication, and Determination of America's People.
We stand now at the last Footholds of Freedom, we shall either Damn the 'Fog' and Turn Back from the Dark Abyss of Lost and Neglected Liberty, or we shall fall to a place where Freemen cannot stand - where they exist rooted to the Subterranean and there is no Light, a place where darkness rules. In this Existence where Liberty has died, these Children will never again realize the Dawn of a New day or Sleep with dreams of Possibility.
'Harken...Harken'...it is an Aged word...meaning Listen with Earnest Intent...
This 'Fall' would take us from the last vestiges of True Freedom that is left in this world, to that Dreaded Place where no beacon shines.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/lb
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
Friends, Countrymen, Noble Sons and Daughters...lend me an ear.
We are descended from many a common lineage- that united to become a 'Noble People'. Ordinary People, who rose up in trying times, to do something Extraordinary. They built and fought for - they forged and sacrificed - they created a New and Free Nation.
Let us lift up our bent necks and raise up our downcast eyes to that Vision that still shines before us. Let us hear once again, the ancient rumbling of these who would become giants and created a Stirring in our land? Hear the whisper of their voices raised on a mighty wind of honest words. We MUST hear them and their urgent pleas to Free our vision from the languid ‘fog’.
Wake Up Children! Wake Up! Our Fathers say - No! They shout! - with voices that will not be ignored or silenced by the decades of Human Sleep....Wake Up or you shall surely perish! The 'Fog' of Ignorance and Forgotten Heritage, is a slow-enveloping - foolishly welcomed by some - deliberately hastened by others....Death. You will Lose All that you have been Given, all that you ever Hope to be.
Listen Children! Listen! Immortal Words once shouted in the air 'We are Free'...once again they carry forth and will long be heard - to help us remember, and ask in the same "Are We Still?” Words that were Recorded, words that were made true through Sacrifice and Struggle, they were a Reality once. They are now Threatened by political Erosion and Citizen neglect.
In the illusive Haze we can imagine ourselves lost, but the 'Fog' is a deceiver - it will dance and swirl its changing form - it will darken the light and trick the eyes - it will reach around us until we feel surrounded and faint of determination in any direction...but it is only 'Fog'.
It CANNOT hold us UNLESS we ALLOW IT - it CANNOT blind us Unless we SHUT our eyes or abandon reaching and searching FOR THE LIGHT...it CANNOT reach inside us and TAKE our SPIRIT...if it has indeed bound us...then look at the Fainted Tendrils... we are paralyzed by nothing more than AIR. Our Prison is an illusion that can be shattered by the increasing degree of Patriotic fervor.
Look around us, we are being forced into submission before a throne of our own allowance - to a master of our own election - and has become the enemy of all Free Men. Hands around our Very Throats...reaching to steal the future from our beloved children and grandchildren - Yes, even far-reaching toward our Unborn Children...These fingers are most assuredly closing around the throat of our entire Country - and any Free Future - of every possible imagining - is gasping for air.
Try to swallow each bitter draught and in that struggle - realize...it is Tyranny choking us ...grasp and Tear Loose of the Finger’s clutch!...while we are Still Free - While there is still Greatness to level the Lesser - While we still have the Light that breaks through the 'fog'.
If we accept the Condition of Slave we will live, but it will be a life of Hearts hardened and only faintly beating - leaded feet that dare not step forward, minds that are numbed in languish and who exist just beyond the ability to reason, we will move as pale specters with spirits that are broken and become every slave who has ever bowed low - never to rise again.
There is no bended knee in a Free Nation, and no yoke will be borne by a Free People.
We cannot be enslaved, unless we accept our bondage. We cannot remain ignorant unless we relinquish our minds. We cannot lose our heart unless we sell them away, a valuable trade for empty promises. Our Liberty must not be relegated forever to the annals of time and chronicles yet to be written. It can only happen if We Agree!
Stand Up!!! Fellow Citizens and as the Children of Patriots - We are Not a People who will be Slaves!!!! This 'Fog' is not a forgiving or generous master. See it for what it is. An Unsubstantial cover for the nothingness of Unprincipled and Corrupted Power, anchored to the self-servant, and Empty as a defective vessel.
The mist will eventually lift, it will dissipate - or be blown by yet another wind. If we accept we are subjects of the Unsubstantial. We will be left striving to survive - with that reality - and grasping at the threads of whatever truth remains.
'Fog' is a weather condition; 'fog' is a war, this 'fog'- is of Counterfeit Progress. And 'This' is the war we have chosen to engage - a war which battles for the Soul of our Nation and the Heart and the Minds of a Free people.
A Movement is happening...and the movement is Rising.
It Speaks the Truth.
A Truth....that The 'Foe' believes the dream will die...but we Refuse...not THIS DREAM.
A Truth......that From hands, long laid sleeping, were written words and intentions. Fathers and Mothers who paid the greatest price to purchase a future for this Noble Land - their dreams - that it would one day be filled with their sons and daughters - living free and breathing the air of liberty.
A Truth....that it is our Duty as, The Children of Patriots, to listen with ears that seek the truth...See with Eyes that search beyond the confounding mist...and Appetites that Hunger, for more than the dietary bites of Freedom we still are allowed to taste. Each knowing in our most Basic Humanness - the truth -that only Freedom can feed the Soul.
A Truth....this Movement is Rising. It will strike at that same Putrid air and throw it back against the Tide of Forgotten Memory and the wave of progressive tyranny. It will succeed or it will fail, determined solely by, the Grace of the Highest Intervention and the Conviction - Dedication, and Determination of America's People.
We stand now at the last Footholds of Freedom, we shall either Damn the 'Fog' and Turn Back from the Dark Abyss of Lost and Neglected Liberty, or we shall fall to a place where Freemen cannot stand - where they exist rooted to the Subterranean and there is no Light, a place where darkness rules. In this Existence where Liberty has died, these Children will never again realize the Dawn of a New day or Sleep with dreams of Possibility.
'Harken...Harken'...it is an Aged word...meaning Listen with Earnest Intent...
This 'Fall' would take us from the last vestiges of True Freedom that is left in this world, to that Dreaded Place where no beacon shines.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/lb
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #2
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
Dreams of a Patriot
On occasion during my sleep time I have dreams of being a benevolent Patriot with the power to change modern government. Many say that dreams are the business of the mind, working out daily problems or issues that affect us. Here are some of a Patriots dreams.
Sometimes I dream of our Founding Fathers, Framers and Ratifiers having the ability of time travel. What would they think of our present day government? Would they have written those documents differently? Would they have formed a citizen militia and revolted against the despotism of today? Would today's society recognize them? Would the news media defame, slander and persecute them for their intent and purpose? How would the politicians of today respond to them? Would they be hounded, hunted and harassed by government law enforcement agencies for their ideals or treasonous words? Is this a dream or the reality of a nightmare of the country we live in?
There have been many song, sonnets, ballads and books written about dreams along with many speeches on the same subject. Why would my dreams be different? To answer that question I will have to refer to the passions of my heart. Not that my passion is different but the expression of that passion may be different. I dare not compare my passion with those that came before me; I am not worthy to stand in the shadow of their greatness or achievements, and can only dream of such wisdom. Some may say that my passion is driven by anger. Anger of broken dreams, hopes and desires, and of broken promises and trust. Some may even say it is driven by love. Love that forgives or a love that encompasses all of my fellow countrymen and women. A love that has understanding and compassion for all walks of life. A love that empathizes with their hopes, desires and dreams. A love. to even die for those dreams.
Some would believe that I am driven by my fears. Fear of failing my responsibility as a Patriot. Fear of failing my children and grandchildren the life of freedom and liberty. Fear to confront the evil within and the bondage it presses upon us. Fear to act, or say or convey my displeasure to public servants of their evil deeds. Fear to dream of truth and justice prevailing over evil and lies. Fear to dream of God and the Laws of God and to obey those Laws. Fear to be equally judged or treated. Fear of lying down my life for those dreams if necessary.
Even some may say that I am driven by my joy. My joy of life and living in a land that has such beauty. The joy of being able to walk the mountains or the sea shore or the high deserts within a country that sets such areas apart for the joy of all. The joy of waking each and every morning knowing that I can still watch the sun rise and have some certainty that it will be a peaceful day. The joy of lying on the lawn at night and watching shooting stars with my best friend. The joy of being able to dream of whatever I wish and the possibility of fulfilling that dream.
My dreams are in so many ways connected with many others. I would hope that my dreams are also connected with those men and women of so long ago. Their dream of a free people. A dream of a government that is respectful of the citizens of this nation. A government the citizens can trust. A government that answers to the very people that allows them to be there. A government that will always do the will of the people. A nation of people that take care of each other. A people that has neither hate nor strife because of belief, color or religion.
A people with a Common Dream of individual rights and freedoms. A People with the Dream of a common Destiny.
Dreams, they changed a world.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/db
Dreams of a Patriot
On occasion during my sleep time I have dreams of being a benevolent Patriot with the power to change modern government. Many say that dreams are the business of the mind, working out daily problems or issues that affect us. Here are some of a Patriots dreams.
Sometimes I dream of our Founding Fathers, Framers and Ratifiers having the ability of time travel. What would they think of our present day government? Would they have written those documents differently? Would they have formed a citizen militia and revolted against the despotism of today? Would today's society recognize them? Would the news media defame, slander and persecute them for their intent and purpose? How would the politicians of today respond to them? Would they be hounded, hunted and harassed by government law enforcement agencies for their ideals or treasonous words? Is this a dream or the reality of a nightmare of the country we live in?
There have been many song, sonnets, ballads and books written about dreams along with many speeches on the same subject. Why would my dreams be different? To answer that question I will have to refer to the passions of my heart. Not that my passion is different but the expression of that passion may be different. I dare not compare my passion with those that came before me; I am not worthy to stand in the shadow of their greatness or achievements, and can only dream of such wisdom. Some may say that my passion is driven by anger. Anger of broken dreams, hopes and desires, and of broken promises and trust. Some may even say it is driven by love. Love that forgives or a love that encompasses all of my fellow countrymen and women. A love that has understanding and compassion for all walks of life. A love that empathizes with their hopes, desires and dreams. A love. to even die for those dreams.
Some would believe that I am driven by my fears. Fear of failing my responsibility as a Patriot. Fear of failing my children and grandchildren the life of freedom and liberty. Fear to confront the evil within and the bondage it presses upon us. Fear to act, or say or convey my displeasure to public servants of their evil deeds. Fear to dream of truth and justice prevailing over evil and lies. Fear to dream of God and the Laws of God and to obey those Laws. Fear to be equally judged or treated. Fear of lying down my life for those dreams if necessary.
Even some may say that I am driven by my joy. My joy of life and living in a land that has such beauty. The joy of being able to walk the mountains or the sea shore or the high deserts within a country that sets such areas apart for the joy of all. The joy of waking each and every morning knowing that I can still watch the sun rise and have some certainty that it will be a peaceful day. The joy of lying on the lawn at night and watching shooting stars with my best friend. The joy of being able to dream of whatever I wish and the possibility of fulfilling that dream.
My dreams are in so many ways connected with many others. I would hope that my dreams are also connected with those men and women of so long ago. Their dream of a free people. A dream of a government that is respectful of the citizens of this nation. A government the citizens can trust. A government that answers to the very people that allows them to be there. A government that will always do the will of the people. A nation of people that take care of each other. A people that has neither hate nor strife because of belief, color or religion.
A people with a Common Dream of individual rights and freedoms. A People with the Dream of a common Destiny.
Dreams, they changed a world.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/db
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #3
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
The Constitution is a Limit
When the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers were debating, writing and creating the Constitution they had a profound distrust of any Federal -Central government. They had studied all forms of government from the Greeks forward, Monarchies, Theocracies, Democracies, Anarchists, loose Tribal agreements, and Republics.
These men were very well read and many were Classical Lawyers so they also distrusted the Courts; the Colonies were mistreated by the Magistrates and there was no justice to be found in the law. The King had started to tax new items, place new tariffs, and enforce new duties even limiting the Colonies ability to buy goods from cheaper alternatives.
The distrust of the King was growing with each new change being placed on the Colonists. Soon the Founders emerged from the Legislatures of the original Colonies, as the appointed or selected Representative from the many States. Note: that some had more than one member. They met in Philadelphia and held many long and heated debates on what they needed to accomplish; which ranged from declaring Sovereignty from England - some even desired to negotiate with the King seeking remedies without separation. There was a serious concern that the new colonies would be attacked by the many other nations in North America and that they could not defend themselves.
So, we had fears of war from others than the King. The King would surely declare war and reject the Declaration of Independence. As all know, the DOI as it is known, was the document that declared, the United States were joining to form a separate Sovereign and independent nation -that could make treaties and alliances with other nations. This was important, as the cost of arms and weapons to fight a great war with England would require loans and advances of goods and money from allies.
Now came the time for the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers to create and debate a Constitution, they had agreed principally, to form a REPRESENTATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. A Republic that would LIMIT the powers of the Central government. The new States would retain the unlimited powers to protect the rights of the people from tyranny and oppression. All governments of that time were class structured - and all were in a constant State of military conflicts. Wars were fought on land, seas, and all continents of the New World. The goal was to prepare for a war, win the freedoms, and then form the new government. This new government was to be small, weak and LIMITED. The Constitution is clearly a limit - and only grants specific powers which were placed in Article I section 8. These were SPECIFIC and DETAILED - not general or unlimited, as the modern believers of the living Constitution support.
Think about the benefits to the current times of the Anti-Federalist insistence that the first ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) be included. This insistence that the power of the Central government should be further limited was crucial to ratification and provided the guarantee of freedom from a government that might become overreaching. During that time, many of the Founders insisted that the statement of rights could be construed to represent all of the rights of the people and give government more power. Well, we see that the BOR is a limit on government, even in these times of massive usurpation and Federal overreach. The Right to Bear Arms would surely be very limited in the political environment of today, if not for the clear statement of the second amendment. Let us thank the Anti-Federalists.
If we look to the Article I section 8 enumerated powers they grant 19 items that limit what the government can do, they are ALL limits, with no statement of any ability to expand these enumerated items. The only method to increase the number and scope of powers was intended to be through the use of the Article V amendment process [called the Article of Correction by many].
The courts usurped powers they did not have under Article III in Marbury V. Madison and McCulloch V. Maryland, and then using these powers, have given the Legislature and the Executive powers not included in the four corners of the Actual Constitution. By allowing usurpation, America is now not a LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC - we are now acting like a DEMOCRACY! Majority rule is now writing and enforcing laws that clearly are unconstitutional, if you limit the Constitution Rule- By- Law to the exact language within the four corners of the Compact.
IN 2013 and we are clearly operating under Majority Rules or a Rule-By-Man system. The Executive issues orders to stop enforcing laws, and also, to enforce Executive orders that are not constitutional or within the powers of that office. The Legislature makes laws that have no foundation inside the four corners, by using the clauses - as the courts did in the above referenced cases. The nine Black Robes of the Supreme Court invent whatever they like as evidenced by the number of 5 to 4 OPINIONS - either something meets the LIMITS of the actual words - or it does not. How can Lawyers consult, argue, and review case law precedent and then just issues’ findings that are not connected to the actual FOUNDATION of our laws - the CONSTITUTION?
[Example: the Health Care tax that the Supreme Court invented to save Obamacare]
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” ~ James Madison.
(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson-Part 1 Beginning on Pg 53.
"DEAR SIR, While Burr's case is depending before the court; I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law."
"I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; &: I think the present a fortunate one. because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad therefore. if, in noticing that case you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extra judicially & against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive."
USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON
Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and its intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and void because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.)
Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation-either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted - is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public trustee, including especially any and every Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (All from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
So as you can surmise the Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/lp
The Constitution is a Limit
When the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers were debating, writing and creating the Constitution they had a profound distrust of any Federal -Central government. They had studied all forms of government from the Greeks forward, Monarchies, Theocracies, Democracies, Anarchists, loose Tribal agreements, and Republics.
These men were very well read and many were Classical Lawyers so they also distrusted the Courts; the Colonies were mistreated by the Magistrates and there was no justice to be found in the law. The King had started to tax new items, place new tariffs, and enforce new duties even limiting the Colonies ability to buy goods from cheaper alternatives.
The distrust of the King was growing with each new change being placed on the Colonists. Soon the Founders emerged from the Legislatures of the original Colonies, as the appointed or selected Representative from the many States. Note: that some had more than one member. They met in Philadelphia and held many long and heated debates on what they needed to accomplish; which ranged from declaring Sovereignty from England - some even desired to negotiate with the King seeking remedies without separation. There was a serious concern that the new colonies would be attacked by the many other nations in North America and that they could not defend themselves.
So, we had fears of war from others than the King. The King would surely declare war and reject the Declaration of Independence. As all know, the DOI as it is known, was the document that declared, the United States were joining to form a separate Sovereign and independent nation -that could make treaties and alliances with other nations. This was important, as the cost of arms and weapons to fight a great war with England would require loans and advances of goods and money from allies.
Now came the time for the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers to create and debate a Constitution, they had agreed principally, to form a REPRESENTATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. A Republic that would LIMIT the powers of the Central government. The new States would retain the unlimited powers to protect the rights of the people from tyranny and oppression. All governments of that time were class structured - and all were in a constant State of military conflicts. Wars were fought on land, seas, and all continents of the New World. The goal was to prepare for a war, win the freedoms, and then form the new government. This new government was to be small, weak and LIMITED. The Constitution is clearly a limit - and only grants specific powers which were placed in Article I section 8. These were SPECIFIC and DETAILED - not general or unlimited, as the modern believers of the living Constitution support.
Think about the benefits to the current times of the Anti-Federalist insistence that the first ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) be included. This insistence that the power of the Central government should be further limited was crucial to ratification and provided the guarantee of freedom from a government that might become overreaching. During that time, many of the Founders insisted that the statement of rights could be construed to represent all of the rights of the people and give government more power. Well, we see that the BOR is a limit on government, even in these times of massive usurpation and Federal overreach. The Right to Bear Arms would surely be very limited in the political environment of today, if not for the clear statement of the second amendment. Let us thank the Anti-Federalists.
If we look to the Article I section 8 enumerated powers they grant 19 items that limit what the government can do, they are ALL limits, with no statement of any ability to expand these enumerated items. The only method to increase the number and scope of powers was intended to be through the use of the Article V amendment process [called the Article of Correction by many].
The courts usurped powers they did not have under Article III in Marbury V. Madison and McCulloch V. Maryland, and then using these powers, have given the Legislature and the Executive powers not included in the four corners of the Actual Constitution. By allowing usurpation, America is now not a LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC - we are now acting like a DEMOCRACY! Majority rule is now writing and enforcing laws that clearly are unconstitutional, if you limit the Constitution Rule- By- Law to the exact language within the four corners of the Compact.
IN 2013 and we are clearly operating under Majority Rules or a Rule-By-Man system. The Executive issues orders to stop enforcing laws, and also, to enforce Executive orders that are not constitutional or within the powers of that office. The Legislature makes laws that have no foundation inside the four corners, by using the clauses - as the courts did in the above referenced cases. The nine Black Robes of the Supreme Court invent whatever they like as evidenced by the number of 5 to 4 OPINIONS - either something meets the LIMITS of the actual words - or it does not. How can Lawyers consult, argue, and review case law precedent and then just issues’ findings that are not connected to the actual FOUNDATION of our laws - the CONSTITUTION?
[Example: the Health Care tax that the Supreme Court invented to save Obamacare]
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” ~ James Madison.
(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson-Part 1 Beginning on Pg 53.
"DEAR SIR, While Burr's case is depending before the court; I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law."
"I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; &: I think the present a fortunate one. because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad therefore. if, in noticing that case you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extra judicially & against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive."
USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON
Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and its intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and void because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is "treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people," as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people's fundamental law. ("letters of Phocion," 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.)
Any usurpation "is criminal and odious" as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation-either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted - is in keeping with the Federalist's denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public trustee, including especially any and every Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (All from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
So as you can surmise the Congress and the Courts are usurpers as they have created new laws where none existed and new rights where none had been before. So, if they usurped the powers and actions the actions and right are hereby voided in the real law.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/lp
The New Federalist Papers #4
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
To the people of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America
WE THE PEOPLE
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on the Restoration of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Constitution of the United States is a legal document, written by men, who, at that time had vast amounts of experience in legal matters. The founding legal document is the Declaration of Independence, signed on July 4, 1776 by the Second Continental Congress. This declaration was unanimously signed by delegates from the 13 States of the United States of America. The first paragraph reads as follows;
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impel them to the separation."
The purpose of this document was to legally advise not only the King of England of the peoples’ intent but to advise the rest of the world’s nation - states of the peoples’ intent to form a self-ruled government. The legal traditions and meanings of those days somewhat differ than today's. If you will notice that the statement indicates that the delegate’s state the peoples’ intent as all-encompassing and not as a separate territorial people, "for ONE people to dissolve..." and this is what is being dissolved..."those political bands which have connected them....." One people in unity and of common purpose and goal formed this basic legally binding document that would eventually shape a nation and a new form of government of self-rule.
The next legal and binding document composed by the people was the Articles portion of the Constitution. These Articles were written by delegates of the people of the now Free, independent and Sovereign States of America. When the delegates had a final draft of these & article it was sent to each of the 13 States for approval, this process is called ratification. When these Articles reached the State level for approval it was not the last step in ratification. At that time, elected or appointed delegates from the citizens of those separate States had to approve the Articles. The people, through a series of debates and public explanations via newspapers articles, eventually allowed the delegates of that State to ratify these 7 Articles outlining a self-ruled people.
These people at that time were considered "liberal" or free thinkers, out of the box rebels, not the same definition as applied today, which would be considered "classic Liberal" today for those following the same ideas as then.
The first three Articles outline a very restrictive three branch central government. These three branches are the Legislative Branch, The Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, with each branch Independent of the other. The Legislative Branch has two parts, A House of Representatives, which are delegates from each State elected by the people, and numbered according to population. The other part is the Senate, in which two delegates are appointed by their State Legislators to represent the Interest of the State from which they are appointed. This first Article includes a restrictive list of authority or powers "loaned" to it by the people. The second Article is the Executive Article and the restrictive authority loaned to that Executive by the people, and very limited. As an example; the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and has appointment authority of officers within that Force. The President also appoints Judges, with the approval of the Senate, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The President is elected by the Citizens of the United States, and again these powers are "loaned" to the President by the people of the United States. The third branch is the U.S. Supreme Court, and their appointment is for life. These Judges, even though appointed are also serving with restrictive powers loaned to them by the people.
The next 4 Articles, with the exception of Article V, distribute to some degree joint loaned authority on government between the Independent States, Congress and the Executive branch. Again these powers are only loaned; however, in Article VI it is a Constitutional Requirement of every elected and appointed official of government to swear an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. The People have now formed a Constitutional Republic and can claim legal and sole ownership of that government, yet the choir will not be completed until 1791 with the addition of the Bill of Rights.
The first 9 of the 10 Amendments, as they are called, is a general outline of unalienable rights, which is in reference to the Declaration of Independence, second clause, for the Citizens of the United States.
Definitions: Unalienable means non-transferable. In other words God given rights cannot be taken away by any man or government.
Rights; means "power" and as an example, the people has the power to defend their person, their home and their loved ones from deadly threats or the power to keep and bear arms.
These rights are not all inclusive and imply that government can not violate not change, restrict nor take away these rights. These Amendments include the process of justice with the right of every accused citizen to a speedy trial before their peers, or not to be tried for the same offense twice as examples. These are solely and exclusively Peoples’ Rights.
The 10th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In this case "power" does not mean the same as a “right" as defined above. What this does is simply state that any disputed territory of authority are States powers or the peoples power. This amendment actually reaffirms that the people will always have last say on how they are governed through either the States or their individual or collective legal authority to do so.
Now the Constitution is complete, it is legal and enforceable but only by the people and not the central government nor even State government. From local to national governments, the people will always have the last say, and if they don't then the Constitution has a legal remedy, if fact several legal remedies, and Article V is one of those legal courses the people may take.
Article V actually offers four ways to amend the Constitution and just to clarify things, amendments do not change the Constitution, it corrects it. The proposal before us to consider is simple and this is how it works; the people of the local and county districts partition the State legislators of their State to call a State convention at which time an Amendment is proposed and agreed upon. That proposal is the 28th Amendment which would repeal three offensive and Un-Constitutional amendments, the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments. Once ratified by the delegation of the three-quarters of the States legislators it is taken to Congress and presented as Constitutional Law. These processes need no Congressional, Presidential or Supreme Court approval. The people would have spoken as is their sole right and power to do.
In the real world of today our Constitutional Republic is on the brink of extinction. The question each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves and our neighbors is this:
Do We change the course for all the generations to come and restore our Constitution, or do allow them to be bound by the very inherent despotism our Founding Fathers clearly defeated over 200 years ago? It is We the Peoples’ Choice and not the governments.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/db
To the people of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America
WE THE PEOPLE
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on the Restoration of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Constitution of the United States is a legal document, written by men, who, at that time had vast amounts of experience in legal matters. The founding legal document is the Declaration of Independence, signed on July 4, 1776 by the Second Continental Congress. This declaration was unanimously signed by delegates from the 13 States of the United States of America. The first paragraph reads as follows;
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impel them to the separation."
The purpose of this document was to legally advise not only the King of England of the peoples’ intent but to advise the rest of the world’s nation - states of the peoples’ intent to form a self-ruled government. The legal traditions and meanings of those days somewhat differ than today's. If you will notice that the statement indicates that the delegate’s state the peoples’ intent as all-encompassing and not as a separate territorial people, "for ONE people to dissolve..." and this is what is being dissolved..."those political bands which have connected them....." One people in unity and of common purpose and goal formed this basic legally binding document that would eventually shape a nation and a new form of government of self-rule.
The next legal and binding document composed by the people was the Articles portion of the Constitution. These Articles were written by delegates of the people of the now Free, independent and Sovereign States of America. When the delegates had a final draft of these & article it was sent to each of the 13 States for approval, this process is called ratification. When these Articles reached the State level for approval it was not the last step in ratification. At that time, elected or appointed delegates from the citizens of those separate States had to approve the Articles. The people, through a series of debates and public explanations via newspapers articles, eventually allowed the delegates of that State to ratify these 7 Articles outlining a self-ruled people.
These people at that time were considered "liberal" or free thinkers, out of the box rebels, not the same definition as applied today, which would be considered "classic Liberal" today for those following the same ideas as then.
The first three Articles outline a very restrictive three branch central government. These three branches are the Legislative Branch, The Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, with each branch Independent of the other. The Legislative Branch has two parts, A House of Representatives, which are delegates from each State elected by the people, and numbered according to population. The other part is the Senate, in which two delegates are appointed by their State Legislators to represent the Interest of the State from which they are appointed. This first Article includes a restrictive list of authority or powers "loaned" to it by the people. The second Article is the Executive Article and the restrictive authority loaned to that Executive by the people, and very limited. As an example; the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and has appointment authority of officers within that Force. The President also appoints Judges, with the approval of the Senate, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The President is elected by the Citizens of the United States, and again these powers are "loaned" to the President by the people of the United States. The third branch is the U.S. Supreme Court, and their appointment is for life. These Judges, even though appointed are also serving with restrictive powers loaned to them by the people.
The next 4 Articles, with the exception of Article V, distribute to some degree joint loaned authority on government between the Independent States, Congress and the Executive branch. Again these powers are only loaned; however, in Article VI it is a Constitutional Requirement of every elected and appointed official of government to swear an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. The People have now formed a Constitutional Republic and can claim legal and sole ownership of that government, yet the choir will not be completed until 1791 with the addition of the Bill of Rights.
The first 9 of the 10 Amendments, as they are called, is a general outline of unalienable rights, which is in reference to the Declaration of Independence, second clause, for the Citizens of the United States.
Definitions: Unalienable means non-transferable. In other words God given rights cannot be taken away by any man or government.
Rights; means "power" and as an example, the people has the power to defend their person, their home and their loved ones from deadly threats or the power to keep and bear arms.
These rights are not all inclusive and imply that government can not violate not change, restrict nor take away these rights. These Amendments include the process of justice with the right of every accused citizen to a speedy trial before their peers, or not to be tried for the same offense twice as examples. These are solely and exclusively Peoples’ Rights.
The 10th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In this case "power" does not mean the same as a “right" as defined above. What this does is simply state that any disputed territory of authority are States powers or the peoples power. This amendment actually reaffirms that the people will always have last say on how they are governed through either the States or their individual or collective legal authority to do so.
Now the Constitution is complete, it is legal and enforceable but only by the people and not the central government nor even State government. From local to national governments, the people will always have the last say, and if they don't then the Constitution has a legal remedy, if fact several legal remedies, and Article V is one of those legal courses the people may take.
Article V actually offers four ways to amend the Constitution and just to clarify things, amendments do not change the Constitution, it corrects it. The proposal before us to consider is simple and this is how it works; the people of the local and county districts partition the State legislators of their State to call a State convention at which time an Amendment is proposed and agreed upon. That proposal is the 28th Amendment which would repeal three offensive and Un-Constitutional amendments, the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments. Once ratified by the delegation of the three-quarters of the States legislators it is taken to Congress and presented as Constitutional Law. These processes need no Congressional, Presidential or Supreme Court approval. The people would have spoken as is their sole right and power to do.
In the real world of today our Constitutional Republic is on the brink of extinction. The question each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves and our neighbors is this:
Do We change the course for all the generations to come and restore our Constitution, or do allow them to be bound by the very inherent despotism our Founding Fathers clearly defeated over 200 years ago? It is We the Peoples’ Choice and not the governments.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/db
The New Federalist Papers #5
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
Faith and Reason of the Modern Citizen
To the Citizens of the United States of America ...
Many claim, and few would deny, that our republic faces great danger, and numerous challenges. You and I along with all of our Citizens likely view our world through three lenses; Faith, Reason, and the "Rule of Law." Let us consider together these three views in hope of finding as much common ground as is possible. While differences no doubt exist in how each of us views our republic, it will surely be our common ground, our common views, which may unite us toward a better and common future.
People of Faith are usually guided by general codes which guide their living, as well as doctrine or theology advocated by organized religions or denominations and embraced by their members. Most of todays "world religions," while claiming exclusive truth, also call for toleration for those who believe differently. Our Founders all called for, and taught that such toleration must dominate our public squares. Mutual respect among all human beings is not only central to Christian faith, but to all major religions in our modern world. All of our Founders were either witnesses of "The Great Awakening," students of it, or both.
"Enlightenment," also called "The Age of Reason," was a period of time, generally from the mid 1600's through the end of the 1700's, during which many men and women of education and intellect, mostly men however, wrote extensively on science and reason as tools of skepticism with which to challenge established religious institutions, especially "State sponsored" religions and the Catholic and Anglican churches. Observation and measurement along with inductive and deductive reasoning undergirded emerging "science." Those identified as Enlightenment proponents span a full range of thought and belief, from "deists" to religious reformers, but virtually none were atheists. The Enlightenment contributors all declared the necessity of morality and ethics but many sought supports for these beyond those flowing from "faith and religion." I have yet to find any "scientific or reasoned" code of morals and ethics. Mankind may claim almost everything to be virtue or vice while others claim neither exist. Some extol happiness or pleasure but none I have found support objective standards, let alone any absolutes.
Though history clearly shows that most of the Founders of the united States were "Christians," some were guided more by Reason than Faith, and still others were guided by both. Yet today, secular humanists and atheists are given exalted status, primarily by judicial elites, rather than by populist sentiment. Yet this was not so for the first 150 years of our republic. Once upon a time, we were founded upon, and operated under the "Rule of Law." Rule of Law historically meant clear lines between "right and wrong" to the appeal of Reason, between "good or evil" to the appeal of Faith, and to "legal and illegal" to the appeal of the Law. Our Founders were clear that "universal and immutable" Law existed and was recorded in The Holy Bible. William Blackstone, though a British jurist, was highly regarded among our Founders such as John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams and many others, wrote "To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose."
Our Founders, and for most of our history, our officeholders and citizens, accepted that God's general Law is Supreme. Where God is silent, man may legislate. Yet today, having expelled God from our schools, still the atheists’ demand more, that God be banished from our public square. In our republic we now have fifty States. Each a societal laboratory where differences may be explored. However, just as Thomas Paine in "Common Sense [1776]" appealed to our common reason, today I appeal to your "common decency." I call upon you, if you believe God exists and the Bible to be His Word, to join with us, regardless of political affiliation, in reminding our federal government that we still have a Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Surely people of Faith, of Reason, and of the Rule of Law, may come together in common agreement as citizens of the several States, and tell our federal "public servants" that "We the People" remain and ought ever to remain their Masters.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/cj
Faith and Reason of the Modern Citizen
To the Citizens of the United States of America ...
Many claim, and few would deny, that our republic faces great danger, and numerous challenges. You and I along with all of our Citizens likely view our world through three lenses; Faith, Reason, and the "Rule of Law." Let us consider together these three views in hope of finding as much common ground as is possible. While differences no doubt exist in how each of us views our republic, it will surely be our common ground, our common views, which may unite us toward a better and common future.
People of Faith are usually guided by general codes which guide their living, as well as doctrine or theology advocated by organized religions or denominations and embraced by their members. Most of todays "world religions," while claiming exclusive truth, also call for toleration for those who believe differently. Our Founders all called for, and taught that such toleration must dominate our public squares. Mutual respect among all human beings is not only central to Christian faith, but to all major religions in our modern world. All of our Founders were either witnesses of "The Great Awakening," students of it, or both.
"Enlightenment," also called "The Age of Reason," was a period of time, generally from the mid 1600's through the end of the 1700's, during which many men and women of education and intellect, mostly men however, wrote extensively on science and reason as tools of skepticism with which to challenge established religious institutions, especially "State sponsored" religions and the Catholic and Anglican churches. Observation and measurement along with inductive and deductive reasoning undergirded emerging "science." Those identified as Enlightenment proponents span a full range of thought and belief, from "deists" to religious reformers, but virtually none were atheists. The Enlightenment contributors all declared the necessity of morality and ethics but many sought supports for these beyond those flowing from "faith and religion." I have yet to find any "scientific or reasoned" code of morals and ethics. Mankind may claim almost everything to be virtue or vice while others claim neither exist. Some extol happiness or pleasure but none I have found support objective standards, let alone any absolutes.
Though history clearly shows that most of the Founders of the united States were "Christians," some were guided more by Reason than Faith, and still others were guided by both. Yet today, secular humanists and atheists are given exalted status, primarily by judicial elites, rather than by populist sentiment. Yet this was not so for the first 150 years of our republic. Once upon a time, we were founded upon, and operated under the "Rule of Law." Rule of Law historically meant clear lines between "right and wrong" to the appeal of Reason, between "good or evil" to the appeal of Faith, and to "legal and illegal" to the appeal of the Law. Our Founders were clear that "universal and immutable" Law existed and was recorded in The Holy Bible. William Blackstone, though a British jurist, was highly regarded among our Founders such as John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams and many others, wrote "To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose."
Our Founders, and for most of our history, our officeholders and citizens, accepted that God's general Law is Supreme. Where God is silent, man may legislate. Yet today, having expelled God from our schools, still the atheists’ demand more, that God be banished from our public square. In our republic we now have fifty States. Each a societal laboratory where differences may be explored. However, just as Thomas Paine in "Common Sense [1776]" appealed to our common reason, today I appeal to your "common decency." I call upon you, if you believe God exists and the Bible to be His Word, to join with us, regardless of political affiliation, in reminding our federal government that we still have a Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Surely people of Faith, of Reason, and of the Rule of Law, may come together in common agreement as citizens of the several States, and tell our federal "public servants" that "We the People" remain and ought ever to remain their Masters.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/cj
The New Federalist Papers #6
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
The Constitution and its Purpose in the Eyes of a Veteran
For some three score of years leading up to our Declaration, our forefathers took every effort, made every argument, confronted every status change imposed on the Equal Subjects of the British Empire; imposed solely on the colonists of this new continent, while the rule of English Law was denied as a right of the subject colonists.
With the Declaration of fundamental principles on The Natural Rights of Man; the Natural relationship of Man and Government, and the Elucidation of Natural Law and its Impact on The Station of Subjects or Citizens of a Nation, our founders codified the Natural means by which Man has found cause to raise government, give it exacting purpose, and has had cause to find logic and reason by which the powers given to Government, over the lives of Men, are clear and defined as to purpose, and equally clear and defined as to the exacting limit.
As an Artificial Construct of Men for an exacting purpose, government must a “constituting document” delineating its purpose, its authority, its duties, and its resources. In keeping with The Nature of Man, the sure and certain knowledge there will be those who would use power for their own purposes, this “constituting document must, by force of reason, be principally and primarily “a limiting document”, the logic being inescapable. In delineating the purpose, the authority, the duties and resources, the constitution lays out the means government uses to accomplish its tasks.
It is a natural fact, to be observed in every society in every bit of history, what Man has produced is naturally taken by those enamored by it, and expounded upon, this being the way of man’s extending his reach and control over Nature. Absent defined limits, every such Construct such as The Constitution will naturally be built upon, and in this specific instance, directly defies the established purpose of the constitution, and the form of construct of our new government.
While Citizens remain cognizant of their Sovereignty, the authority it finds vested in “The Consent of The Governed”, while Sovereign Citizens remain active in the animated contest for the conduct of our servant government, the security of The Constitution, and the propriety of the constituted Government is well in the hands of “The Sovereign People of The Several Sovereign States”, and by this, two distinct levels of Separate Sovereignty, stand between the central, “federal” government and its assumption of power not provided in the Constitution for its specific duties.
History has shown, and time has proven it true for This American People as much as any other, man is more disposed to endure imposition, while he can find excuse for it, than to confront incursion, face down those who would usurp authority, and stand upon His Sovereign Citizenship and deny with censure, such acts, and by this, an accumulation of usurped power, self-appointed authority, and the reluctance of Man to decry that which appears to fulfill demands, even while circumventing proper means, has always been the manner by which a well-intended People allow their rightful Authority slip away and be assumed by those it has been lent to.
Our Constitution was ratified some ten score and twenty odd years ago, having been carefully assembled, carefully crafted with last minute security for Citizen Sovereignty and the absolute Sovereignty of The Several States, devised and securing the support of those concerned with the lack of these attributes by the assurance this “Bill of Rights” would not only be the first issue on the plate of the Congress to be elected, but these would be inculcated as part of the original Constitution with the weight of original concept given to them, as belongs to the rest of the constituting Contract between The Sovereign Peoples of the Sovereign States.
Americans and people the world over assume our constitution was written for a populace which was well prepared and ready to take these principles and apply them, however few will give the full measure of credit for the felicity by which we managed to adopt an entirely new form, a paradigm with one foot in the realm of utopian dream, and the other foot solidly planted in a new form of Nation.
In truth, the founding of our “republic” was accomplished by the dictates of some 58 men, their concurrence on a better way by which an egalitarian form could be made to work, and the fact that all of our founders, while dictating the means this new form would follow, were each and all completely dedicated to exercising the liberty, the responsibilities, and the freedoms which they saw as the natural birth-right of all of Mankind. Our Citizen Sovereignty was imposed upon us by subjects who rightly understood Man is born equal, and thereby must bear the responsibility of society equally or be subject.
The importation of a “standing army” for the exact purpose of “quartering” troops in such households as were seen to be not properly respectful of king and empire was the final stroke which could not be ignored by our founders, and the proximate cause of our first two confrontations. The “Night Riders” were commissioned for the purpose of warning the populace of the arrival of the Empire’s ships bearing the Soldiers who would be quartered among the colonists.
Our forefathers gathered at the two armories which were considered the greatest threat, and the intended object of seizure the troops were also sent for, and patriots gathered on The Greens of Lexington, and at The Old Bridge at Concord, where cannon, tons of powder, ball, canister shot, chain shot, shrapnel shells, all the accoutrements of war and the defense of cities were secured.
The commanders of the brigades which mustered to confront the British each spoke to their forces, with the statement clearly enunciated, “We are here to secure our rights, to secure our arms, and have no purpose in war. If the British will have war, let they fire the first shot. No matter what, do not fire until you can see the whites of their eyes, we shall not fire upon the British forces, but will only fire in return”.
From these two encounters, the remainder of the war of independence sprang, and from our first engagement, firm, solid American principle of war was established. The Soldiers were Citizens, Sovereign, yet also Soldiers, volunteers, but subject to orders. In order for this peculiar set of contrary conditions to be met, it was incumbent upon those assuming the force and power of war to set aside their Sovereignty voluntarily, in order to be securely subject to the expanses and limits of war, and the acts of such.
From this unique military organization, the Constitution has become the single entity to which all “Citizen-Soldiers” take oath of affirm both Loyalty and Responsibility to and for, and the “firmly established fixed principles and purposes” have replaced “Nation”, “King” and “government” as the founded “Nation” to which all Sovereign Loyalty lies.
Ours is not the first military to cleave to the establishment of principles for a Nation, rather than to King or Government, but by doing so, we have provided a contiguous group of Sovereign Citizens who have, each in their own term, in their own time, relinquished their sovereignty for a time, assumed the role of subject servant to The Nation, which is The People, and by this act, known by personal experience, the actuary value of such sovereignty as can only be found by its relinquishing, and by its return.
In this way, the continuity of purpose of our constitution has been maintained throughout our history, even while the subject government has usurped ever increasing powers and imposing ever increasing law without authority.
The Founders did not establish a form of government, design a form of State and Nation, which was designed around and prepared for a people ready to take it in hand and move forward as hindsight would have it appear. Rather, the founders saw in The People, the capacity of independence, the ability to make clear and cogent decisions, and were capable of being more than what they were. Our form was designed for a people to grow up to; to assume the full sovereign powers few “People’s” had ever held themselves, and none for long.
Our Nation has held its outward form longer than other Nations, and it has continued to operate in large, to the best interest of citizens, however no Nation established, no government stood up has ever been so without garnering immediate action of others with the intent of taking advantage of the flux in which a people operate while establishing precedent, working out procedures, and putting intentions into practice.
Our initial security was entirely the “citizen-soldier” and the militias which were the form for securing our Nation, and our constitution provides only for congress to form an army when it has declared war, specifically denying a standing army ever, in peacetime. A Nation spanning a continent, with oceans for two borders, required a Navy be established as the standing military force securing the Nation. No Navy can secure a Nation without infantry to bear arms and put “boots on the ground”, and “Soldiers of the Sea”, the Corps of Marines, were also established as a standing and fixed military to be the security of our Nation.
At the time of our founding, British Subjects who would become our founders, sought with every means to have “the rule of law” applied, no less, and no more to the colonies, than to the British homeland, and they sought this by every means for more than fifty years. They desired the security of Britain, yet resented the ability of fellow subjects to treat them as foreign subjects because an ocean separated us from confronting those with a duty to serve the law equally.
From the time of our first confrontation, all the way through the first two decades of our existence, our independence was in doubt and at risk both from England, merely waiting opportunity, and by France and Spain, with only the cost versus value issue, and the fact of competing desires allowed the “Citizen-Soldiers” our militia, be sufficient to keep off predatory attacks, and to confront those such as 1812, and force a treaty based compromise keeping Britain at bay, and ensuring they were considering themselves first in line, and defending their desire to take dominion again.
Out of this, practically every American Man was sworn to fealty to the Constitution, sworn to the underlying principles of the foundation of our Nation and its form, and by this, “Citizen Sovereignty” was both understood, and well valued. No question existed as to the cost of this “Sovereignty”, and no question existed as to the fealty to principle over government or aristocrat.
Only the extraordinary success, the enormous advantage free market capitalism had over every other form of production, made this Nation able to grow at ten times the rate of any previous, and by this, we became a Nation of “specialists”. Our very form allowed for the principle advanced by John Mill, “the selfish self-interest of each citizen” providing such people with the best incentive to work to achieve their greatest efforts, and with each, looking out at a world of their “common making”, and individually choosing the place they see best possibilities to personally further, and thus profit by their work.
Out of this success came the end of the “citizen soldier” as the common lot for all Men, and the beginning of the “military class” the Men who would choose armed service as vocation no differently than the blacksmith choosing to earn his living in iron, or the baker making his profits in providing bread.
In the burgeoning success of Our Nation, those who have become this “citizen-soldier professional” have as every other specialty, become an ever smaller percentage of overall population, and it is by this fact, the constitution comes to us in this day and age, brought to us in its original form and function, primarily by those who have served with it alone as the sum total of law and principle over their lives, their honor, encompassing the whole of their being while in the fullness of service.
While we have maintained “Citizen Sovereignty” in our National lexicon, in its lack of exercise, along with the deliberate educating of citizens away from constitutional principle, few but the most dedicated constitutional scholars, and those who are the proper and ordinary descendants of “The Citizen-Soldier”, our volunteer Armed Forces, are the sole members of Society who have maintained the continuous, reliable understanding of the full purpose of “contracting to specific government” said contract being a fixed contract, the constitution, with legally fixed meaning, established in the time, with the common meaning of words, phrases and terms, and carried forward in these exact meanings, that we continue to observe and operate on exactly the same principles as our founding.
We have arrived at this crisis, at this point where our Nation has ceased to conform to the law, our government recognizes no authority but its own, and depends entirely on the power of the seat of government as the sole limitations on assumption of power by the elected and appointed officials in government.
The greatest part of why we have arrived at this juncture is conjoined, a result of a populace taught it need not concern its self, but can trust it will be served, this taught contrary to all reason and history. At the same time, only personal drive and interest give any good cause to consider government, and its authority, even in the throes of almost total domination over every jot and tittle of our lives, we live with greater luxury and ease than when we had the least government, and the greatest freedom and liberty. It has been this ease which has made the siren call to elect “leaders” and cease to expect representatives, that we might be able to give over the responsibility of determination to them, and release ourselves from responsibility.
In this climate, it is those who have chosen to relinquish all their natural rights, and in doing so, have the greatest cause to study and know precisely what such things are, and how they are found, defined, and proven out, it is such Citizens who alone take the words of our constitution as they were laid down, in their basic meaning at the time of their writing, and at the same time, assume the founding principles as their own, and in this, carry all that was carefully constructed for we, posterity of those founders, in its exactitude and we do so because we alone have the full and complete knowledge of the cost of freedom, the price of liberty, the means by which we Preserve Our Nation.
The extraordinary work which our constitution is, the extraordinary form of government it defines, the truly remarkable form of Nation and the Culture which is nourished by all this principled and rational approach to forming government has not only given us the most bountiful way of life in history, but it has also served to remove the most egregious causes for maintaining vigilance, and keeping “the republic” by removing the hardship and burden of aristocracy and fiat taxation, but in doing so, it has also removed the goad which constantly kept people vigilant against government encroachment, with constant rising level of quality of life, even while taxation and outright theft through fiat money has consistently and constantly reduced our receipts of the fruits of our labor.
The establishment of a professional military has provided the means of maintaining continuity in understanding “the republic” and the “constitution” which is the law governing the republic, and has allowed the original meaning and force be brought down through the centuries, unmolested.
The ability of the majority to avoid service in said professional military has provided opportunity for the general population to “cease eyeing the ball”, making the mistake of trusting those who naturally cleave to power, and leaving the security of the Nation in the hands of the self-anointed “aristocracy” and giving not only the elected full and total authority, but actually transferring legislative power over to hired and appointed bureaucrats.
As the only Citizens who take their oath to support and defend the constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and doing this only by relinquishing their rights, unlike the elect, who take such oaths, but do not subject themselves under even such law they pass for the Nation, We, the members of the Armed Forces, alone, bring the original constitution, the original republic into the public square with our studied understanding, and being the sole Americans who must consider this “constitution”, this rule of law over government, from the perspective of Americans who have relinquished their rights, and accepted dictatorial rule of law, The Uniform Code of Military Justice, “Martial law” entirely outside the Constitution, and in force above and beyond “the supreme law of the land”, for those singular Citizens who accept life under tyranny of the harshest form, in exchange for the privilege of being the Defenders of the Nation, and by this, having all authority to defend “The Constitution” fully in keeping, to the full extent of the oath we live by.
Our Nation has arrived at this juncture solely for lack of faith in first principles, for lack of understanding, that which is not defended will be taken. We have allowed the prosperity our founders ensured, to become more important to each, individually, than the security of each and any of our personal liberties, and by this, we have allowed the servants we elected to become the masters of their own government.
This is the most important moment in our Nation’s history for those who have served, have given some of their life, to preserve what has been lightly considered, and by this, lost unless we choose to restore the foundation of our Nation we have long abandoned.
All those who have Service know the exact face of tyranny, having lived under it as subordinates, but also having enforced it, as leaders. For us, the constitution remains a fixed, unchanged contract, and we must fulfill duty, or be derelict. We must act, for better or worse. We can only lose except that The People who are The Nation choose to voluntarily accept the full weight of duty as Sovereigns, once again, and choose to enforce this constitution We, in our oaths, are bound to.
We, who are bound, will not wait forever, but the future of the Nation will be determined by the response of The American Citizen to the call of The American Soldier, because our duty closes in on us, and shortly we must choose. Our own choice will be determined by our oath, the outcome of what America does will be determined by the choice made by The Sovereign Citizens, because those who don’t become an active part of that choice, have chosen not to accept sovereignty, it is a responsibility which can only be actively fulfilled, it cannot be assumed by default.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/jm
The Constitution and its Purpose in the Eyes of a Veteran
For some three score of years leading up to our Declaration, our forefathers took every effort, made every argument, confronted every status change imposed on the Equal Subjects of the British Empire; imposed solely on the colonists of this new continent, while the rule of English Law was denied as a right of the subject colonists.
With the Declaration of fundamental principles on The Natural Rights of Man; the Natural relationship of Man and Government, and the Elucidation of Natural Law and its Impact on The Station of Subjects or Citizens of a Nation, our founders codified the Natural means by which Man has found cause to raise government, give it exacting purpose, and has had cause to find logic and reason by which the powers given to Government, over the lives of Men, are clear and defined as to purpose, and equally clear and defined as to the exacting limit.
As an Artificial Construct of Men for an exacting purpose, government must a “constituting document” delineating its purpose, its authority, its duties, and its resources. In keeping with The Nature of Man, the sure and certain knowledge there will be those who would use power for their own purposes, this “constituting document must, by force of reason, be principally and primarily “a limiting document”, the logic being inescapable. In delineating the purpose, the authority, the duties and resources, the constitution lays out the means government uses to accomplish its tasks.
It is a natural fact, to be observed in every society in every bit of history, what Man has produced is naturally taken by those enamored by it, and expounded upon, this being the way of man’s extending his reach and control over Nature. Absent defined limits, every such Construct such as The Constitution will naturally be built upon, and in this specific instance, directly defies the established purpose of the constitution, and the form of construct of our new government.
While Citizens remain cognizant of their Sovereignty, the authority it finds vested in “The Consent of The Governed”, while Sovereign Citizens remain active in the animated contest for the conduct of our servant government, the security of The Constitution, and the propriety of the constituted Government is well in the hands of “The Sovereign People of The Several Sovereign States”, and by this, two distinct levels of Separate Sovereignty, stand between the central, “federal” government and its assumption of power not provided in the Constitution for its specific duties.
History has shown, and time has proven it true for This American People as much as any other, man is more disposed to endure imposition, while he can find excuse for it, than to confront incursion, face down those who would usurp authority, and stand upon His Sovereign Citizenship and deny with censure, such acts, and by this, an accumulation of usurped power, self-appointed authority, and the reluctance of Man to decry that which appears to fulfill demands, even while circumventing proper means, has always been the manner by which a well-intended People allow their rightful Authority slip away and be assumed by those it has been lent to.
Our Constitution was ratified some ten score and twenty odd years ago, having been carefully assembled, carefully crafted with last minute security for Citizen Sovereignty and the absolute Sovereignty of The Several States, devised and securing the support of those concerned with the lack of these attributes by the assurance this “Bill of Rights” would not only be the first issue on the plate of the Congress to be elected, but these would be inculcated as part of the original Constitution with the weight of original concept given to them, as belongs to the rest of the constituting Contract between The Sovereign Peoples of the Sovereign States.
Americans and people the world over assume our constitution was written for a populace which was well prepared and ready to take these principles and apply them, however few will give the full measure of credit for the felicity by which we managed to adopt an entirely new form, a paradigm with one foot in the realm of utopian dream, and the other foot solidly planted in a new form of Nation.
In truth, the founding of our “republic” was accomplished by the dictates of some 58 men, their concurrence on a better way by which an egalitarian form could be made to work, and the fact that all of our founders, while dictating the means this new form would follow, were each and all completely dedicated to exercising the liberty, the responsibilities, and the freedoms which they saw as the natural birth-right of all of Mankind. Our Citizen Sovereignty was imposed upon us by subjects who rightly understood Man is born equal, and thereby must bear the responsibility of society equally or be subject.
The importation of a “standing army” for the exact purpose of “quartering” troops in such households as were seen to be not properly respectful of king and empire was the final stroke which could not be ignored by our founders, and the proximate cause of our first two confrontations. The “Night Riders” were commissioned for the purpose of warning the populace of the arrival of the Empire’s ships bearing the Soldiers who would be quartered among the colonists.
Our forefathers gathered at the two armories which were considered the greatest threat, and the intended object of seizure the troops were also sent for, and patriots gathered on The Greens of Lexington, and at The Old Bridge at Concord, where cannon, tons of powder, ball, canister shot, chain shot, shrapnel shells, all the accoutrements of war and the defense of cities were secured.
The commanders of the brigades which mustered to confront the British each spoke to their forces, with the statement clearly enunciated, “We are here to secure our rights, to secure our arms, and have no purpose in war. If the British will have war, let they fire the first shot. No matter what, do not fire until you can see the whites of their eyes, we shall not fire upon the British forces, but will only fire in return”.
From these two encounters, the remainder of the war of independence sprang, and from our first engagement, firm, solid American principle of war was established. The Soldiers were Citizens, Sovereign, yet also Soldiers, volunteers, but subject to orders. In order for this peculiar set of contrary conditions to be met, it was incumbent upon those assuming the force and power of war to set aside their Sovereignty voluntarily, in order to be securely subject to the expanses and limits of war, and the acts of such.
From this unique military organization, the Constitution has become the single entity to which all “Citizen-Soldiers” take oath of affirm both Loyalty and Responsibility to and for, and the “firmly established fixed principles and purposes” have replaced “Nation”, “King” and “government” as the founded “Nation” to which all Sovereign Loyalty lies.
Ours is not the first military to cleave to the establishment of principles for a Nation, rather than to King or Government, but by doing so, we have provided a contiguous group of Sovereign Citizens who have, each in their own term, in their own time, relinquished their sovereignty for a time, assumed the role of subject servant to The Nation, which is The People, and by this act, known by personal experience, the actuary value of such sovereignty as can only be found by its relinquishing, and by its return.
In this way, the continuity of purpose of our constitution has been maintained throughout our history, even while the subject government has usurped ever increasing powers and imposing ever increasing law without authority.
The Founders did not establish a form of government, design a form of State and Nation, which was designed around and prepared for a people ready to take it in hand and move forward as hindsight would have it appear. Rather, the founders saw in The People, the capacity of independence, the ability to make clear and cogent decisions, and were capable of being more than what they were. Our form was designed for a people to grow up to; to assume the full sovereign powers few “People’s” had ever held themselves, and none for long.
Our Nation has held its outward form longer than other Nations, and it has continued to operate in large, to the best interest of citizens, however no Nation established, no government stood up has ever been so without garnering immediate action of others with the intent of taking advantage of the flux in which a people operate while establishing precedent, working out procedures, and putting intentions into practice.
Our initial security was entirely the “citizen-soldier” and the militias which were the form for securing our Nation, and our constitution provides only for congress to form an army when it has declared war, specifically denying a standing army ever, in peacetime. A Nation spanning a continent, with oceans for two borders, required a Navy be established as the standing military force securing the Nation. No Navy can secure a Nation without infantry to bear arms and put “boots on the ground”, and “Soldiers of the Sea”, the Corps of Marines, were also established as a standing and fixed military to be the security of our Nation.
At the time of our founding, British Subjects who would become our founders, sought with every means to have “the rule of law” applied, no less, and no more to the colonies, than to the British homeland, and they sought this by every means for more than fifty years. They desired the security of Britain, yet resented the ability of fellow subjects to treat them as foreign subjects because an ocean separated us from confronting those with a duty to serve the law equally.
From the time of our first confrontation, all the way through the first two decades of our existence, our independence was in doubt and at risk both from England, merely waiting opportunity, and by France and Spain, with only the cost versus value issue, and the fact of competing desires allowed the “Citizen-Soldiers” our militia, be sufficient to keep off predatory attacks, and to confront those such as 1812, and force a treaty based compromise keeping Britain at bay, and ensuring they were considering themselves first in line, and defending their desire to take dominion again.
Out of this, practically every American Man was sworn to fealty to the Constitution, sworn to the underlying principles of the foundation of our Nation and its form, and by this, “Citizen Sovereignty” was both understood, and well valued. No question existed as to the cost of this “Sovereignty”, and no question existed as to the fealty to principle over government or aristocrat.
Only the extraordinary success, the enormous advantage free market capitalism had over every other form of production, made this Nation able to grow at ten times the rate of any previous, and by this, we became a Nation of “specialists”. Our very form allowed for the principle advanced by John Mill, “the selfish self-interest of each citizen” providing such people with the best incentive to work to achieve their greatest efforts, and with each, looking out at a world of their “common making”, and individually choosing the place they see best possibilities to personally further, and thus profit by their work.
Out of this success came the end of the “citizen soldier” as the common lot for all Men, and the beginning of the “military class” the Men who would choose armed service as vocation no differently than the blacksmith choosing to earn his living in iron, or the baker making his profits in providing bread.
In the burgeoning success of Our Nation, those who have become this “citizen-soldier professional” have as every other specialty, become an ever smaller percentage of overall population, and it is by this fact, the constitution comes to us in this day and age, brought to us in its original form and function, primarily by those who have served with it alone as the sum total of law and principle over their lives, their honor, encompassing the whole of their being while in the fullness of service.
While we have maintained “Citizen Sovereignty” in our National lexicon, in its lack of exercise, along with the deliberate educating of citizens away from constitutional principle, few but the most dedicated constitutional scholars, and those who are the proper and ordinary descendants of “The Citizen-Soldier”, our volunteer Armed Forces, are the sole members of Society who have maintained the continuous, reliable understanding of the full purpose of “contracting to specific government” said contract being a fixed contract, the constitution, with legally fixed meaning, established in the time, with the common meaning of words, phrases and terms, and carried forward in these exact meanings, that we continue to observe and operate on exactly the same principles as our founding.
We have arrived at this crisis, at this point where our Nation has ceased to conform to the law, our government recognizes no authority but its own, and depends entirely on the power of the seat of government as the sole limitations on assumption of power by the elected and appointed officials in government.
The greatest part of why we have arrived at this juncture is conjoined, a result of a populace taught it need not concern its self, but can trust it will be served, this taught contrary to all reason and history. At the same time, only personal drive and interest give any good cause to consider government, and its authority, even in the throes of almost total domination over every jot and tittle of our lives, we live with greater luxury and ease than when we had the least government, and the greatest freedom and liberty. It has been this ease which has made the siren call to elect “leaders” and cease to expect representatives, that we might be able to give over the responsibility of determination to them, and release ourselves from responsibility.
In this climate, it is those who have chosen to relinquish all their natural rights, and in doing so, have the greatest cause to study and know precisely what such things are, and how they are found, defined, and proven out, it is such Citizens who alone take the words of our constitution as they were laid down, in their basic meaning at the time of their writing, and at the same time, assume the founding principles as their own, and in this, carry all that was carefully constructed for we, posterity of those founders, in its exactitude and we do so because we alone have the full and complete knowledge of the cost of freedom, the price of liberty, the means by which we Preserve Our Nation.
The extraordinary work which our constitution is, the extraordinary form of government it defines, the truly remarkable form of Nation and the Culture which is nourished by all this principled and rational approach to forming government has not only given us the most bountiful way of life in history, but it has also served to remove the most egregious causes for maintaining vigilance, and keeping “the republic” by removing the hardship and burden of aristocracy and fiat taxation, but in doing so, it has also removed the goad which constantly kept people vigilant against government encroachment, with constant rising level of quality of life, even while taxation and outright theft through fiat money has consistently and constantly reduced our receipts of the fruits of our labor.
The establishment of a professional military has provided the means of maintaining continuity in understanding “the republic” and the “constitution” which is the law governing the republic, and has allowed the original meaning and force be brought down through the centuries, unmolested.
The ability of the majority to avoid service in said professional military has provided opportunity for the general population to “cease eyeing the ball”, making the mistake of trusting those who naturally cleave to power, and leaving the security of the Nation in the hands of the self-anointed “aristocracy” and giving not only the elected full and total authority, but actually transferring legislative power over to hired and appointed bureaucrats.
As the only Citizens who take their oath to support and defend the constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and doing this only by relinquishing their rights, unlike the elect, who take such oaths, but do not subject themselves under even such law they pass for the Nation, We, the members of the Armed Forces, alone, bring the original constitution, the original republic into the public square with our studied understanding, and being the sole Americans who must consider this “constitution”, this rule of law over government, from the perspective of Americans who have relinquished their rights, and accepted dictatorial rule of law, The Uniform Code of Military Justice, “Martial law” entirely outside the Constitution, and in force above and beyond “the supreme law of the land”, for those singular Citizens who accept life under tyranny of the harshest form, in exchange for the privilege of being the Defenders of the Nation, and by this, having all authority to defend “The Constitution” fully in keeping, to the full extent of the oath we live by.
Our Nation has arrived at this juncture solely for lack of faith in first principles, for lack of understanding, that which is not defended will be taken. We have allowed the prosperity our founders ensured, to become more important to each, individually, than the security of each and any of our personal liberties, and by this, we have allowed the servants we elected to become the masters of their own government.
This is the most important moment in our Nation’s history for those who have served, have given some of their life, to preserve what has been lightly considered, and by this, lost unless we choose to restore the foundation of our Nation we have long abandoned.
All those who have Service know the exact face of tyranny, having lived under it as subordinates, but also having enforced it, as leaders. For us, the constitution remains a fixed, unchanged contract, and we must fulfill duty, or be derelict. We must act, for better or worse. We can only lose except that The People who are The Nation choose to voluntarily accept the full weight of duty as Sovereigns, once again, and choose to enforce this constitution We, in our oaths, are bound to.
We, who are bound, will not wait forever, but the future of the Nation will be determined by the response of The American Citizen to the call of The American Soldier, because our duty closes in on us, and shortly we must choose. Our own choice will be determined by our oath, the outcome of what America does will be determined by the choice made by The Sovereign Citizens, because those who don’t become an active part of that choice, have chosen not to accept sovereignty, it is a responsibility which can only be actively fulfilled, it cannot be assumed by default.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/jm
The New Federalist Papers #7
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
To the people and States of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the existing Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on a restoration of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Restoration of States
First as Colonies, now as States became a fact at the signing of the Treaty of Paris on Sept, 3, 1783 at Hotel d'York in Paris France. Signers for the 13 New States were Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Henry Laurens and John Adams. The sole signer for King George III was David Hartley, the other British Representative; Richard Oswald refused to sign in protest. On this same day England also signed treaties with France, Spain and the Netherlands, allies to the American War effort. The Congress of Confederation ratified the treaty on Jan 14, 1784, that day is now called Ratification Day.
Keys articles of the treaty
King George III acknowledgement that the 13 States were free, independent and sovereign States.
The British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property and territorial rights of those 13 States.
Forget all past differences and misunderstandings, and secure to both governments a perpetual peace and harmony.
Exchange of all prisoners of war and prevention of the States of future confiscation of British Loyalist property.
Establish territorial boundaries and perpetual access to Mississippi River.
Not mentioned in the treaty but having a greater and longer lasting benefit for the 13 States was worldwide legal acknowledgement as free, independent and Sovereign from all the Nation-States of the world. These 13 States are not yet a "united" States however.
Until the actual signing of the Article of the Constitution the government was in name; Congress of Confederation of Perpetual Union. By definition "union" means; the act of forming, so the United States of America became a reality on September 17, 1787. This day is called Constitution Day and by law, "each and every agency or department shall provide education and training materials concerning the United States Constitution to each employee....." Public Law 108-447, section 111.
Before I discuss further points, I must stress some very important facts of historical importance. In today’s often times heated debates we will refer to Founding Fathers or Framers, with hardly a mention of the third group, Ratifiers. Even though there is no intention on my part to lessen the importance of the Founders or Framers, the Ratifiers played the major and key role in the establishment of our Constitutional Republic. These Ratifiers represented "We the People" and without the peoples consent of the concept and form of government we would not be here today in all likelihood. The reason I stress this is because later on in this essay I will write about what I call the "step-down" form of Republicanism.
The other very important fact to consider here is that the writers of the Articles and the first 12 Amendments were mostly highly educated lawyers. Wording was an exact science carrying weight of intent and purpose, and style of writing was also different. Some definitions then, have different meanings now, so to understand the purpose and intent we must be prudent reading the Constitution with our mind, set in their time frame and understanding. As long as people interpret the meaning of words, phrases, intent and purpose from today’s standards and definition there will always be conflict with no unity. So, keeping that in mind, let us go forward.
One of the most important intents and purposes of the Framers of the Articles in the Constitution is to keep the rights of the people to govern themselves as close to home as humanly possible. The local, county and State levels of government are directly affected by the citizens within those areas. The people being the top rung of the ladder, the next "step down" is city, then step down to county and then step down to State, and finally a step down to a small central Federal Government. It is a “from the top down” system keeping in mind that the people are the final arbitrators of their destiny. If any rungs go missing in this ladder the system will not work, and it's a long fall from the top to the bottom and the sudden stop at the bottom is painful. Also notice that as the rungs of the ladder become farther and farther apart the system is also bound for failure, and these are two very good reasons why the Framers wanted self-governance to be locally controlled.
The people during the framing of the Articles are still considered as a "people of one" and keeping that in mind the people "granted" certain authority to their State delegates. This was not a compact amongst the States; it is more evidential as a form of a grant, simply by reading the first three words of the Preamble. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" is the exact form of wording in a Monarch's grant which would be worded as such; "King George III do hereby grant land to....," stating authority and purpose. This is exactly what a preamble does, states authority and purpose. The delegates first are granted to speak for the citizens of the State, who are then given authority to speak to form a Union of States with limited powers granted by the people.
The people in that era of our history were not unaware of the authority that they had. In fact they were very reluctant to give that authority to a central government without very clear restrictions to the use of that authority. The people would also not allow the delegates to authorize a return to despotism or any form of government that would control private lives. State granted authority prevented such acts from a central government. In reality, each and Every State had what is called "police powers". This means that the States wrote their own laws, enforced those laws, sanctioned marriages, business licenses, levied taxes, appointed judges, civil and criminal courts...etc. States also had shared powers with the central government, such as cooperation with inter-state commerce and trade with each other. States did not have authority to declare wars on other nations, make treaties, or be involved in Foreign Affairs as examples. States also determined date, time and place of elections of State political candidates but must adhere to the central government’s election laws pertaining to the election of president. States also had the right to nullify Federal Laws and even secession if given reason enough. This State Right of secession will split a Nation some 87 years later and result in the bloodiest conflict in American History.
There are many people today that think this "Civil War" was about slavery, those people cannot be farther from the truth. Slavery was a small issue in the war but not the major issue. The State Rights issue really started in 1832 with a dispute between the State of South Carolina and President Andrew Jackson over import-export Tariff percentages collected by the Federal Government. South Caroline nullified the Tariff Law of 1832, at which time Jackson convinced Congress to allow him to form an Army and invade South Carolina to collect tariffs from the Port of Charleston. Eventually that issue was settled and South Carolina lifted the nullification but immediately nullified the Force Act. During this time two Founders, one being a Framer as well, were still alive. Both were asked about the nullification of South Carolina, both responded that nullification was a State Right as well as secession if nullification did not work. Those ideals come from the fact that the Union was a "grant" by the people and they could withdraw that grant at any time that State had reason to do so.
Unfortunately the issue of tariffs did not go away and came to a head when the industrial North raised tariffs through Congressional Law. This Tariff increased the revenue of the North but devastated the price of cotton in the Southern States. The Southern State's delegations complained of the unfairness of the Tariff and threatened secession if not lifted. The Northern Controlled Congress refused and elected Abraham Lincoln a Northern Radical Republican as President. The South, knowing that Lincoln was not going to support a decrease in Tariffs, immediately seceded from the United States of America, wrote their own Constitution, formed their own government, elected their own delegates and formed an Army, this New Nation was called the Confederate States of America. So the war was on, sounding somewhat familiar to a War for Independence 90 years earlier.
After the slaughter of an estimated 600,000 men and some women the Southern Army surrendered and the Confederate States collapsed under the weight of debt and starvation of the general populace. Even though General Grant allowed those that had mules to keep them, it did very little good. Days after the surrender, President Lincoln was assassinated and replaced by Vice President Andrew Johnson, a previous well known and respected Senator and Lincoln appointed Military Governor of the State of Tennessee. The Northern Congress hated him because he was not a Reconstructionist Republican and had Southern sympathies as to State Rights. Here is where our political history becomes chaotic for many historians on Congressional application of Constitutional powers of Congress and the President. The outcome has been debated thousands times but the long term effects of these applications of powers has been felt ever since.
The first noticeable change in the Northern Controlled Congress was the proposal and ratification of both Northern and Southern States was the 13th Amendment. This amendment made slavery and involuntary servitude a crime, unless a person had been convicted of a crime and then it's legal for the State to place that person in bondage. And even though somewhat more clandestine is the wording that "Congress Shall have power to enforce this article" first appears. Take note that the granting of authority by the people has taken a different direction. The second noticeable change was the ratification of the 14th Amendment. This is where the Constitutional legality of the Northern controlled Congressional actions gets hazy, even somewhat confusing.
Through a law called the Reconstruction Act the Northern Congress forced the Southern "states" to ratify the 14th Amendment before they were allowed back in the Union. However President Johnson had already recognized all the Southern Rebels as States and these Southern States had already participated in the ratification of the 13th Amendment, and now the Northern Congress did not recognize the South as States and treats them as Territories. The law also formed the South into Military Districts and appointed Military Governors of those Districts. This laws also stripped President Johnson of his Constitutional Powers as Commander in Chief of those Military Districts and the occupying troops. The law made possible that any person in public office was forced to swear an oath of allegiance or be removed from office and the position be filled by appointment of the Military Governor. This law also allowed the Military Governors the power to arrest, try and convict citizens before a military tribunal. This law also mandated that all Rebel States rewrite their Constitution which had to be approved by the Northern Congress before re-admittance to Statehood.
Eventually the amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 or was it July 20, 1868, no, it was July 21, 1868. For ratification, Congress needed 28 States of the 37 in agreement. On July 9th there was only 27 States to have ratified, so that is the wrong date yet in many records “that" day is the correct date. However, five of the Southern States where not States according to the Reconstruction Law and ultimately by Constitutional Law could not ratify. Later, after the "official" ratification notice given by Secretary of State William Seward on July 20, 1868, three States, Oregon, New Jersey and Ohio (all Northern States) withdrew their ratification notice, to which Congress refused to acknowledge their legal State Right to do so. These three States did not Ratify until; Oregon, 1973, and 2003 for New Jersey and Ohio. In many minds the legality of the Ratification of the 14th Amendment is still a question. Where was the Supreme Court during all this?. On the sidelines, hear no evil, speak no evil, say no evil, dominated and intimidated by a vengeful and spiteful Northern Congress set on financial and labor domination of the people and the Brother States of the South.
The 14th Amendment stripped most all of the peoples granted authority from both Southern and Northern States. Some historians will argue that the Congressional Powers gained by this amendment was what the Framers intended in the first place. However, those historians don't look at the very intent and purpose of a one people self-ruled Constitution. A government that can only rule by the power granted to them by the people, then the States. The States serve as a buffer between an over authoritarian government and the people of the Nation. Once that "rung" in the ladder is missing there is nothing to stop the three branches of government from obtaining and controlling the private lives of "We the people" and the States in which they live.
Many people today believe that what the government does is with the approval of Constitutional Law and mandated by Articles within that Constitution. A false belief that with even the casual reading could be revealed as a lie. It was never the intent or the purpose of the Framers and especially the Ratifiers to bargain the unalienable rights of the people of the whole nation away to a central all powerful government. It was never their intent nor purpose to have any central government mandate laws of force against the peoples’ will nor removed those non-transferable rights given to us by the Creator. And if that be the case after fighting a war for Independence why would those very people turn such authority back to a government they have no trust in?
Present Day Government is a result of a highly questionable Amendment, ratified by questionable means and enforced by Un-Constitutional mandates never granted to them by past nor present day people of this Nation. However, the Framers and Ratifiers did have a plan which is dependent on the people to correct the despotism by government. This plan is Article V of the Constitution and here is how it works.
The people from each State proposes to their State Legislators an amendment that will repeal three illegal, abused and Un-Constitutional amendments, the 14th, 16th and 17th being the target of such actions. With the approval of 38 of the 50 States Legislators a States Convention is called at which time the proposed 28th amendment is ratified. After ratification the amendment is presented to Congress as Constitutional Law. The Congress, the President or the Supreme Court has no authority to vote on, veto nor opinionate on such Amendment.
The People of one Nation will once again be the final authority of their destiny.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/db
To the people and States of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the existing Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on a restoration of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Restoration of States
First as Colonies, now as States became a fact at the signing of the Treaty of Paris on Sept, 3, 1783 at Hotel d'York in Paris France. Signers for the 13 New States were Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Henry Laurens and John Adams. The sole signer for King George III was David Hartley, the other British Representative; Richard Oswald refused to sign in protest. On this same day England also signed treaties with France, Spain and the Netherlands, allies to the American War effort. The Congress of Confederation ratified the treaty on Jan 14, 1784, that day is now called Ratification Day.
Keys articles of the treaty
King George III acknowledgement that the 13 States were free, independent and sovereign States.
The British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property and territorial rights of those 13 States.
Forget all past differences and misunderstandings, and secure to both governments a perpetual peace and harmony.
Exchange of all prisoners of war and prevention of the States of future confiscation of British Loyalist property.
Establish territorial boundaries and perpetual access to Mississippi River.
Not mentioned in the treaty but having a greater and longer lasting benefit for the 13 States was worldwide legal acknowledgement as free, independent and Sovereign from all the Nation-States of the world. These 13 States are not yet a "united" States however.
Until the actual signing of the Article of the Constitution the government was in name; Congress of Confederation of Perpetual Union. By definition "union" means; the act of forming, so the United States of America became a reality on September 17, 1787. This day is called Constitution Day and by law, "each and every agency or department shall provide education and training materials concerning the United States Constitution to each employee....." Public Law 108-447, section 111.
Before I discuss further points, I must stress some very important facts of historical importance. In today’s often times heated debates we will refer to Founding Fathers or Framers, with hardly a mention of the third group, Ratifiers. Even though there is no intention on my part to lessen the importance of the Founders or Framers, the Ratifiers played the major and key role in the establishment of our Constitutional Republic. These Ratifiers represented "We the People" and without the peoples consent of the concept and form of government we would not be here today in all likelihood. The reason I stress this is because later on in this essay I will write about what I call the "step-down" form of Republicanism.
The other very important fact to consider here is that the writers of the Articles and the first 12 Amendments were mostly highly educated lawyers. Wording was an exact science carrying weight of intent and purpose, and style of writing was also different. Some definitions then, have different meanings now, so to understand the purpose and intent we must be prudent reading the Constitution with our mind, set in their time frame and understanding. As long as people interpret the meaning of words, phrases, intent and purpose from today’s standards and definition there will always be conflict with no unity. So, keeping that in mind, let us go forward.
One of the most important intents and purposes of the Framers of the Articles in the Constitution is to keep the rights of the people to govern themselves as close to home as humanly possible. The local, county and State levels of government are directly affected by the citizens within those areas. The people being the top rung of the ladder, the next "step down" is city, then step down to county and then step down to State, and finally a step down to a small central Federal Government. It is a “from the top down” system keeping in mind that the people are the final arbitrators of their destiny. If any rungs go missing in this ladder the system will not work, and it's a long fall from the top to the bottom and the sudden stop at the bottom is painful. Also notice that as the rungs of the ladder become farther and farther apart the system is also bound for failure, and these are two very good reasons why the Framers wanted self-governance to be locally controlled.
The people during the framing of the Articles are still considered as a "people of one" and keeping that in mind the people "granted" certain authority to their State delegates. This was not a compact amongst the States; it is more evidential as a form of a grant, simply by reading the first three words of the Preamble. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" is the exact form of wording in a Monarch's grant which would be worded as such; "King George III do hereby grant land to....," stating authority and purpose. This is exactly what a preamble does, states authority and purpose. The delegates first are granted to speak for the citizens of the State, who are then given authority to speak to form a Union of States with limited powers granted by the people.
The people in that era of our history were not unaware of the authority that they had. In fact they were very reluctant to give that authority to a central government without very clear restrictions to the use of that authority. The people would also not allow the delegates to authorize a return to despotism or any form of government that would control private lives. State granted authority prevented such acts from a central government. In reality, each and Every State had what is called "police powers". This means that the States wrote their own laws, enforced those laws, sanctioned marriages, business licenses, levied taxes, appointed judges, civil and criminal courts...etc. States also had shared powers with the central government, such as cooperation with inter-state commerce and trade with each other. States did not have authority to declare wars on other nations, make treaties, or be involved in Foreign Affairs as examples. States also determined date, time and place of elections of State political candidates but must adhere to the central government’s election laws pertaining to the election of president. States also had the right to nullify Federal Laws and even secession if given reason enough. This State Right of secession will split a Nation some 87 years later and result in the bloodiest conflict in American History.
There are many people today that think this "Civil War" was about slavery, those people cannot be farther from the truth. Slavery was a small issue in the war but not the major issue. The State Rights issue really started in 1832 with a dispute between the State of South Carolina and President Andrew Jackson over import-export Tariff percentages collected by the Federal Government. South Caroline nullified the Tariff Law of 1832, at which time Jackson convinced Congress to allow him to form an Army and invade South Carolina to collect tariffs from the Port of Charleston. Eventually that issue was settled and South Carolina lifted the nullification but immediately nullified the Force Act. During this time two Founders, one being a Framer as well, were still alive. Both were asked about the nullification of South Carolina, both responded that nullification was a State Right as well as secession if nullification did not work. Those ideals come from the fact that the Union was a "grant" by the people and they could withdraw that grant at any time that State had reason to do so.
Unfortunately the issue of tariffs did not go away and came to a head when the industrial North raised tariffs through Congressional Law. This Tariff increased the revenue of the North but devastated the price of cotton in the Southern States. The Southern State's delegations complained of the unfairness of the Tariff and threatened secession if not lifted. The Northern Controlled Congress refused and elected Abraham Lincoln a Northern Radical Republican as President. The South, knowing that Lincoln was not going to support a decrease in Tariffs, immediately seceded from the United States of America, wrote their own Constitution, formed their own government, elected their own delegates and formed an Army, this New Nation was called the Confederate States of America. So the war was on, sounding somewhat familiar to a War for Independence 90 years earlier.
After the slaughter of an estimated 600,000 men and some women the Southern Army surrendered and the Confederate States collapsed under the weight of debt and starvation of the general populace. Even though General Grant allowed those that had mules to keep them, it did very little good. Days after the surrender, President Lincoln was assassinated and replaced by Vice President Andrew Johnson, a previous well known and respected Senator and Lincoln appointed Military Governor of the State of Tennessee. The Northern Congress hated him because he was not a Reconstructionist Republican and had Southern sympathies as to State Rights. Here is where our political history becomes chaotic for many historians on Congressional application of Constitutional powers of Congress and the President. The outcome has been debated thousands times but the long term effects of these applications of powers has been felt ever since.
The first noticeable change in the Northern Controlled Congress was the proposal and ratification of both Northern and Southern States was the 13th Amendment. This amendment made slavery and involuntary servitude a crime, unless a person had been convicted of a crime and then it's legal for the State to place that person in bondage. And even though somewhat more clandestine is the wording that "Congress Shall have power to enforce this article" first appears. Take note that the granting of authority by the people has taken a different direction. The second noticeable change was the ratification of the 14th Amendment. This is where the Constitutional legality of the Northern controlled Congressional actions gets hazy, even somewhat confusing.
Through a law called the Reconstruction Act the Northern Congress forced the Southern "states" to ratify the 14th Amendment before they were allowed back in the Union. However President Johnson had already recognized all the Southern Rebels as States and these Southern States had already participated in the ratification of the 13th Amendment, and now the Northern Congress did not recognize the South as States and treats them as Territories. The law also formed the South into Military Districts and appointed Military Governors of those Districts. This laws also stripped President Johnson of his Constitutional Powers as Commander in Chief of those Military Districts and the occupying troops. The law made possible that any person in public office was forced to swear an oath of allegiance or be removed from office and the position be filled by appointment of the Military Governor. This law also allowed the Military Governors the power to arrest, try and convict citizens before a military tribunal. This law also mandated that all Rebel States rewrite their Constitution which had to be approved by the Northern Congress before re-admittance to Statehood.
Eventually the amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 or was it July 20, 1868, no, it was July 21, 1868. For ratification, Congress needed 28 States of the 37 in agreement. On July 9th there was only 27 States to have ratified, so that is the wrong date yet in many records “that" day is the correct date. However, five of the Southern States where not States according to the Reconstruction Law and ultimately by Constitutional Law could not ratify. Later, after the "official" ratification notice given by Secretary of State William Seward on July 20, 1868, three States, Oregon, New Jersey and Ohio (all Northern States) withdrew their ratification notice, to which Congress refused to acknowledge their legal State Right to do so. These three States did not Ratify until; Oregon, 1973, and 2003 for New Jersey and Ohio. In many minds the legality of the Ratification of the 14th Amendment is still a question. Where was the Supreme Court during all this?. On the sidelines, hear no evil, speak no evil, say no evil, dominated and intimidated by a vengeful and spiteful Northern Congress set on financial and labor domination of the people and the Brother States of the South.
The 14th Amendment stripped most all of the peoples granted authority from both Southern and Northern States. Some historians will argue that the Congressional Powers gained by this amendment was what the Framers intended in the first place. However, those historians don't look at the very intent and purpose of a one people self-ruled Constitution. A government that can only rule by the power granted to them by the people, then the States. The States serve as a buffer between an over authoritarian government and the people of the Nation. Once that "rung" in the ladder is missing there is nothing to stop the three branches of government from obtaining and controlling the private lives of "We the people" and the States in which they live.
Many people today believe that what the government does is with the approval of Constitutional Law and mandated by Articles within that Constitution. A false belief that with even the casual reading could be revealed as a lie. It was never the intent or the purpose of the Framers and especially the Ratifiers to bargain the unalienable rights of the people of the whole nation away to a central all powerful government. It was never their intent nor purpose to have any central government mandate laws of force against the peoples’ will nor removed those non-transferable rights given to us by the Creator. And if that be the case after fighting a war for Independence why would those very people turn such authority back to a government they have no trust in?
Present Day Government is a result of a highly questionable Amendment, ratified by questionable means and enforced by Un-Constitutional mandates never granted to them by past nor present day people of this Nation. However, the Framers and Ratifiers did have a plan which is dependent on the people to correct the despotism by government. This plan is Article V of the Constitution and here is how it works.
The people from each State proposes to their State Legislators an amendment that will repeal three illegal, abused and Un-Constitutional amendments, the 14th, 16th and 17th being the target of such actions. With the approval of 38 of the 50 States Legislators a States Convention is called at which time the proposed 28th amendment is ratified. After ratification the amendment is presented to Congress as Constitutional Law. The Congress, the President or the Supreme Court has no authority to vote on, veto nor opinionate on such Amendment.
The People of one Nation will once again be the final authority of their destiny.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/db
The New Federalist Papers #8
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
The Detour from Destruction
Having lived as a citizen of several different States within the United States, gives a person a rich view of different points of view within a large unified country. Conversely, having lived outside the United States for more than twelve years, under different governments in three separate countries in Europe. I must, I feel, warn of impending disaster.
Unfortunately the history of Europe and its people is somewhat of a mystery to Americans. Even those fortunate few who have had the pleasure of traveling. Those few have only scratched the surface of the differences in thinking between Europeans and Americans. The ex-pats who lived as Europeans have been exposed to the questions of the people they have befriended.
Personally, I have lived and worked in Germany, The United Kingdom and Spain. I have been able to learn enough of the foreign languages to be accepted by the middle class people of the countries I have indicated. We Americans assume the language is the same in the United Kingdom as in the USA. The people of England have a standing joke regarding this view point, “We are two people separated by a common language”.
It is with some pride that I can state, I have sat and talked with the common people, the workers of these countries and been accepted to their conversations. This has been somewhat facilitated by the fact history, both American and European, has always been a favorite past-time of mine. When a foreigner can sit in a pub with an English roofer as a friend, then be introduced with pride to a person joining the conversation, “This is my American friend, he probably knows more the history of our country than we do”. Of course, this is always followed by a self-conscious laugh from myself. My point is that when the working man will accept you into their conversations there is a lot to learn about their viewpoints, no matter the country. Due to my profession, I have had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with political leaders, business leaders and upper-class Gentry of many of these countries. For my opinion, it is the commoner, the working man, if he accepts you as an equal, he will tell you the truth about the prevailing views.
As Americans we have different traditions, always have had and I expect we always will have. I for one, was greatly offended when Obama bowed before the Saudi Ruler. To my knowledge this was the first time it had happened in the history of the USA. Not since John Adams was the Ambassador to the court of St. James, it was he who set the precedent that it would not happen and I hope it never happens again. To the European mind, accustomed to the etiquette and trappings of Monarchy, the fact that Michelle Obama placed her arm around the Queen of England was significant. This small bow by President Obama was insignificant. To me it was a violation of all that is American.
This Monarchical thinking is still pervasive in nearly all of Europe. Why would it not be so? Though today the Kings and Queens of Europe are regarded as figure heads and in some cases not even that highly, having actually been banished from their countries, such as the Royalty of Greece. Even England the Queen is only the titular head of State and protector of the faith. Yet if you look closely, the United Kingdom is a Parliamentary system without a written constitution. While it is true the vaunted Magna Carta was influential in the formation of our American Constitution, it was an agreement between the King and the Aristocracy, it had little to do with the peasant population of England. The French revolution, which followed shortly after our own revolution, did not truly establish a democratic form of government there. The first world war was fought by the Germans under a Kaiser Wilhelm, their form of ruling Monarch, following that the allies set up the Weimar Republic, which only lasted until the rise of the Third Reich. The Spanish set up several republics through the years, usually overthrown by the military as was the case when the Dictator Franco came to power in the 1930's. Considering all the facts, the European Continent as a whole has a very short history with constitutional democracy; usually it can in modern times only be traced back as far as the end of World War Two. In light of what I have just cited, why would the USA be taking lessons of any kind in democracy from Europe?
Look again closely at the United Kingdom. Prior to World War Two, the motto, “The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire”, actually was in fact true. The meaning is lost on many, but in actuality, if in the 1930's one traced the progress of the sun as the earth revolved, it was shining in part either on a British possession or upon the ocean. Since the British at the time considered their mighty naval forces invincible, it was a demonstrable motto. Following the Second World War the British treasury was so depleted the Empire simply could not be supported and was lost to the Crown forever. It is a documented fact, the British debt to the United States following the Second World War was only paid off in the last decade.
Yet the most remembered motto under Labour's Clement Atlee and his administration is “Cradle to Grave Care” or “Health Care Free at the Point of Need”. The Socialists under the Labour Party banner led the way in Europe to socialized welfare, health care and democratic socialism, as it has been understood since that time. To write the ups and down's of how this has worked over the decades since the last World War would be time consuming and futile. If the reader cares to check, the internet provides the many sides of the argument in fine fashion.
What I am most concerned about is how this is working today. For it is this moment in time which may reveal what perhaps lays in store should the USA decide to follow the European strategy. The statistics, as recently published, puts the United Kingdom at the highest population growth in the European Union over the past year. Is this from birth rates at an all-time high? No, it is from uncontrolled immigration. Uncontrolled because it is both legal immigration, coming from other EU member states and illegal immigration coming from prospective candidate EU members or from visa over stays.
This immigration rise in part is prompting the call to leave the EU in the United Kingdom. In the course of the current crisis, the unemployment figures for UK residents have fallen to 7.8%. Countries such as Greece currently has unemployment figures in the region of 27.6%, Spain has figures in the area of 25.5%. Given the influx of people seeking escape from the utter failure of their country to rebound from the crisis in the way the United Kingdom has and given the memories of the last EU expansion and the resulting impact on the UK, is it any wonder the skepticism.
It is not just the influx of immigrants, the drain on resources in a time of crisis till they find a job, the overcrowding in schools from the increase in students, the increased load on hospitals, all this is difficult. The main objection to the rule of the EU in the centralization of power. The regulations coming at an ever increasing pace from Brussels. The interference with the decisions of the courts of the United Kingdom. Does any of this sound familiar with events currently occurring in the USA?
The Spanish Government is having not less problems in the current crisis. As was eluded to above the unemployment statistics are reaching record levels. The youth unemployment is somewhere above 50%, given the severity of the numbers one can understand the reluctance to fully reveal such startling numbers. The economic crisis in Spain has reached such proportions the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is demanding wage decreases and price controls to stave off worsening inflation figures. What in the depression era of the thirties was known as bread lines and soup kitchens, it's modern counter-part is functioning quietly to meet the needs of people. The homeless population now includes what formerly were middle-class families.
In reality such readily available statistics do little to reveal the true nature of the crisis. Let us take a recent tragedy such as the train derailment in Santiago de Compostela. My sources tell me, the hospital where most of the victims were taken was not the closest, nor the best equipped hospital in the region. The closets hospital in the region had within just the recent few years received a major renovation to its emergency room and to its surgical operation rooms. The problem was though; this part of this hospital was closed due to the economic crisis. Many off duty medical personnel knowing the facilities available originally went to the closed emergency room fully expecting the lights and equipment to be turned on, both there and in the modern surgical suites. Instead they were instructed to go to another hospital. Another hospital a few precious minutes farther away. A hospital that had not been renovated, but because it was officially the designated reception site by current government crisis plans it had to serve. Spain is also a country of National Health Service.
Greece has experienced much worse in its National Health Service. Since Greece was unable to pay the bills coming due from the pharmaceutical companies, these companies stopped sending medical supplies to hospitals and pharmacies. Retire people who had worked all their lives under one set of promises, now faced no delivery on promises made to them. It has become such a pressing problem that that several NGO's who work normally takes them to deprived countries in areas considered third world are now doing what they can with supplies bought with contributions.
In my mind, the state of affairs in Europe is only slightly better than the years of the Great Depression. The main difference I see is that as was the plan implemented after World War Two, the countries are so economically intertwined; the thought of an attack is seen as calamitous.
Yet the far right parties are gaining ground in Greece and in Italy. The immigrant invasion continues into both countries from Africa and the backlash in intense. The problem comes about due to the policies of the EU. The far right feels they cannot adequately defend their borders and in the face of the financial crisis, they feel they cannot monetarily support the immigrants who are invading. It is the proverbial “Catch 22”.
The question that seems to remain boiling in the background is, what will happen when there is no choice but to leave the EU. It is not only the countries such as Greece and Spain who are facing the question but also Italy and especially Portugal is facing eminent economic collapse. The entire European Union is still in a state of denial. Germany is the only country it seems with the economic power to keep the union together, but no one knows for how long.
The European Union does not have the great good fortune to have a solution such as our constitution gives the United States. There is no European Constitution only a series of treaties holding the entire fabric together. At any moment another economic blow would be devastating to their entire project. At any moment the value of the Euro could be undermined by loss of investor confidence. Which entity is there that could stand in for another sell off? The United States could no longer offer another “Marshall Plan” as it did after the devastation of World War Two.
Is the world ready to see the photographs of people in bread lines, or worse, as was the case after the fall of the world economy in the 1930’s? If that should happen would it give rise to another round of Dictators saying, “Only I can fix this”? The Governments of Europe have invested so much political capital into the idea that socialized government programs can make everyone's lives better. They have invested so much into the fact that everyone has human rights and no one had responsibilities. It is in their minds the government's responsibility to fix everything. If they can just spend enough, if they can just employ enough people on the government payroll, if they can just give enough welfare, if they can just make sure everyone has a “Living Wage”, then they can solve all the problems. Oh, they can also stop global warming and clean up all potential waste and make sure that everyone is towing the party line all at the same time. After that I am convince they will put the fires out in Hell so no one will ever have to face any potential consequences on the other side of death as well.
From my humble prospective, the United States can learn many lessons from what has happened over the last sixty some years in Europe following World War Two. Perhaps it is also time for our generation to look back at our history and decide, do we want that vaunted “Change” promised by Obama? Khrushchev in 1959 stood at the podium of the United Nations pounding upon the podium with his shoe. He declared then that the communist world would not have to fight to take over the western capitalist world. He stated unequivocally the communist system would infiltrate the capitalist system quietly, slowly and surreptitiously change our way of life. I firmly believe he felt that by slowly changing Europe to socialist style economies, by changing the way the Europeans looked at the communist threat, it would worm it's wicked way into the United States.
The same year as Khrushchev proclaimed his eventual conquest of the world, our own President Eisenhower delivered his last speech as President. He warned against the Military/Industrial complex becoming so powerful as to control the country and the economy. Today it seems that if the United States were to cut the Military Budget by 80% we would still spend more than the next five countries combined. Our constitution states we should not have a standing army, yet we do. We perhaps have more than one in the form of the many federal agencies that now claim to have enforcement powers. Remember Europe once had a country that powerful as well.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/gd
The Detour from Destruction
Having lived as a citizen of several different States within the United States, gives a person a rich view of different points of view within a large unified country. Conversely, having lived outside the United States for more than twelve years, under different governments in three separate countries in Europe. I must, I feel, warn of impending disaster.
Unfortunately the history of Europe and its people is somewhat of a mystery to Americans. Even those fortunate few who have had the pleasure of traveling. Those few have only scratched the surface of the differences in thinking between Europeans and Americans. The ex-pats who lived as Europeans have been exposed to the questions of the people they have befriended.
Personally, I have lived and worked in Germany, The United Kingdom and Spain. I have been able to learn enough of the foreign languages to be accepted by the middle class people of the countries I have indicated. We Americans assume the language is the same in the United Kingdom as in the USA. The people of England have a standing joke regarding this view point, “We are two people separated by a common language”.
It is with some pride that I can state, I have sat and talked with the common people, the workers of these countries and been accepted to their conversations. This has been somewhat facilitated by the fact history, both American and European, has always been a favorite past-time of mine. When a foreigner can sit in a pub with an English roofer as a friend, then be introduced with pride to a person joining the conversation, “This is my American friend, he probably knows more the history of our country than we do”. Of course, this is always followed by a self-conscious laugh from myself. My point is that when the working man will accept you into their conversations there is a lot to learn about their viewpoints, no matter the country. Due to my profession, I have had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with political leaders, business leaders and upper-class Gentry of many of these countries. For my opinion, it is the commoner, the working man, if he accepts you as an equal, he will tell you the truth about the prevailing views.
As Americans we have different traditions, always have had and I expect we always will have. I for one, was greatly offended when Obama bowed before the Saudi Ruler. To my knowledge this was the first time it had happened in the history of the USA. Not since John Adams was the Ambassador to the court of St. James, it was he who set the precedent that it would not happen and I hope it never happens again. To the European mind, accustomed to the etiquette and trappings of Monarchy, the fact that Michelle Obama placed her arm around the Queen of England was significant. This small bow by President Obama was insignificant. To me it was a violation of all that is American.
This Monarchical thinking is still pervasive in nearly all of Europe. Why would it not be so? Though today the Kings and Queens of Europe are regarded as figure heads and in some cases not even that highly, having actually been banished from their countries, such as the Royalty of Greece. Even England the Queen is only the titular head of State and protector of the faith. Yet if you look closely, the United Kingdom is a Parliamentary system without a written constitution. While it is true the vaunted Magna Carta was influential in the formation of our American Constitution, it was an agreement between the King and the Aristocracy, it had little to do with the peasant population of England. The French revolution, which followed shortly after our own revolution, did not truly establish a democratic form of government there. The first world war was fought by the Germans under a Kaiser Wilhelm, their form of ruling Monarch, following that the allies set up the Weimar Republic, which only lasted until the rise of the Third Reich. The Spanish set up several republics through the years, usually overthrown by the military as was the case when the Dictator Franco came to power in the 1930's. Considering all the facts, the European Continent as a whole has a very short history with constitutional democracy; usually it can in modern times only be traced back as far as the end of World War Two. In light of what I have just cited, why would the USA be taking lessons of any kind in democracy from Europe?
Look again closely at the United Kingdom. Prior to World War Two, the motto, “The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire”, actually was in fact true. The meaning is lost on many, but in actuality, if in the 1930's one traced the progress of the sun as the earth revolved, it was shining in part either on a British possession or upon the ocean. Since the British at the time considered their mighty naval forces invincible, it was a demonstrable motto. Following the Second World War the British treasury was so depleted the Empire simply could not be supported and was lost to the Crown forever. It is a documented fact, the British debt to the United States following the Second World War was only paid off in the last decade.
Yet the most remembered motto under Labour's Clement Atlee and his administration is “Cradle to Grave Care” or “Health Care Free at the Point of Need”. The Socialists under the Labour Party banner led the way in Europe to socialized welfare, health care and democratic socialism, as it has been understood since that time. To write the ups and down's of how this has worked over the decades since the last World War would be time consuming and futile. If the reader cares to check, the internet provides the many sides of the argument in fine fashion.
What I am most concerned about is how this is working today. For it is this moment in time which may reveal what perhaps lays in store should the USA decide to follow the European strategy. The statistics, as recently published, puts the United Kingdom at the highest population growth in the European Union over the past year. Is this from birth rates at an all-time high? No, it is from uncontrolled immigration. Uncontrolled because it is both legal immigration, coming from other EU member states and illegal immigration coming from prospective candidate EU members or from visa over stays.
This immigration rise in part is prompting the call to leave the EU in the United Kingdom. In the course of the current crisis, the unemployment figures for UK residents have fallen to 7.8%. Countries such as Greece currently has unemployment figures in the region of 27.6%, Spain has figures in the area of 25.5%. Given the influx of people seeking escape from the utter failure of their country to rebound from the crisis in the way the United Kingdom has and given the memories of the last EU expansion and the resulting impact on the UK, is it any wonder the skepticism.
It is not just the influx of immigrants, the drain on resources in a time of crisis till they find a job, the overcrowding in schools from the increase in students, the increased load on hospitals, all this is difficult. The main objection to the rule of the EU in the centralization of power. The regulations coming at an ever increasing pace from Brussels. The interference with the decisions of the courts of the United Kingdom. Does any of this sound familiar with events currently occurring in the USA?
The Spanish Government is having not less problems in the current crisis. As was eluded to above the unemployment statistics are reaching record levels. The youth unemployment is somewhere above 50%, given the severity of the numbers one can understand the reluctance to fully reveal such startling numbers. The economic crisis in Spain has reached such proportions the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is demanding wage decreases and price controls to stave off worsening inflation figures. What in the depression era of the thirties was known as bread lines and soup kitchens, it's modern counter-part is functioning quietly to meet the needs of people. The homeless population now includes what formerly were middle-class families.
In reality such readily available statistics do little to reveal the true nature of the crisis. Let us take a recent tragedy such as the train derailment in Santiago de Compostela. My sources tell me, the hospital where most of the victims were taken was not the closest, nor the best equipped hospital in the region. The closets hospital in the region had within just the recent few years received a major renovation to its emergency room and to its surgical operation rooms. The problem was though; this part of this hospital was closed due to the economic crisis. Many off duty medical personnel knowing the facilities available originally went to the closed emergency room fully expecting the lights and equipment to be turned on, both there and in the modern surgical suites. Instead they were instructed to go to another hospital. Another hospital a few precious minutes farther away. A hospital that had not been renovated, but because it was officially the designated reception site by current government crisis plans it had to serve. Spain is also a country of National Health Service.
Greece has experienced much worse in its National Health Service. Since Greece was unable to pay the bills coming due from the pharmaceutical companies, these companies stopped sending medical supplies to hospitals and pharmacies. Retire people who had worked all their lives under one set of promises, now faced no delivery on promises made to them. It has become such a pressing problem that that several NGO's who work normally takes them to deprived countries in areas considered third world are now doing what they can with supplies bought with contributions.
In my mind, the state of affairs in Europe is only slightly better than the years of the Great Depression. The main difference I see is that as was the plan implemented after World War Two, the countries are so economically intertwined; the thought of an attack is seen as calamitous.
Yet the far right parties are gaining ground in Greece and in Italy. The immigrant invasion continues into both countries from Africa and the backlash in intense. The problem comes about due to the policies of the EU. The far right feels they cannot adequately defend their borders and in the face of the financial crisis, they feel they cannot monetarily support the immigrants who are invading. It is the proverbial “Catch 22”.
The question that seems to remain boiling in the background is, what will happen when there is no choice but to leave the EU. It is not only the countries such as Greece and Spain who are facing the question but also Italy and especially Portugal is facing eminent economic collapse. The entire European Union is still in a state of denial. Germany is the only country it seems with the economic power to keep the union together, but no one knows for how long.
The European Union does not have the great good fortune to have a solution such as our constitution gives the United States. There is no European Constitution only a series of treaties holding the entire fabric together. At any moment another economic blow would be devastating to their entire project. At any moment the value of the Euro could be undermined by loss of investor confidence. Which entity is there that could stand in for another sell off? The United States could no longer offer another “Marshall Plan” as it did after the devastation of World War Two.
Is the world ready to see the photographs of people in bread lines, or worse, as was the case after the fall of the world economy in the 1930’s? If that should happen would it give rise to another round of Dictators saying, “Only I can fix this”? The Governments of Europe have invested so much political capital into the idea that socialized government programs can make everyone's lives better. They have invested so much into the fact that everyone has human rights and no one had responsibilities. It is in their minds the government's responsibility to fix everything. If they can just spend enough, if they can just employ enough people on the government payroll, if they can just give enough welfare, if they can just make sure everyone has a “Living Wage”, then they can solve all the problems. Oh, they can also stop global warming and clean up all potential waste and make sure that everyone is towing the party line all at the same time. After that I am convince they will put the fires out in Hell so no one will ever have to face any potential consequences on the other side of death as well.
From my humble prospective, the United States can learn many lessons from what has happened over the last sixty some years in Europe following World War Two. Perhaps it is also time for our generation to look back at our history and decide, do we want that vaunted “Change” promised by Obama? Khrushchev in 1959 stood at the podium of the United Nations pounding upon the podium with his shoe. He declared then that the communist world would not have to fight to take over the western capitalist world. He stated unequivocally the communist system would infiltrate the capitalist system quietly, slowly and surreptitiously change our way of life. I firmly believe he felt that by slowly changing Europe to socialist style economies, by changing the way the Europeans looked at the communist threat, it would worm it's wicked way into the United States.
The same year as Khrushchev proclaimed his eventual conquest of the world, our own President Eisenhower delivered his last speech as President. He warned against the Military/Industrial complex becoming so powerful as to control the country and the economy. Today it seems that if the United States were to cut the Military Budget by 80% we would still spend more than the next five countries combined. Our constitution states we should not have a standing army, yet we do. We perhaps have more than one in the form of the many federal agencies that now claim to have enforcement powers. Remember Europe once had a country that powerful as well.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/gd
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #9 Part 1
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on the correction of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Law and Enforcement Powers Part 1
When this Nation was formed, the Framers along with the Ratifiers from the 13 original States did not have the intention of loaning or granting their hard earned liberties away. These people had just won a hard fought war and removed themselves from the royal idealism of Tyranny.
They had been the subjects of a tyrannical government that had made laws, enforced laws and executed those laws simply on the whim of the Tyrant King. Most tyrants of history expressed and believed that they - and only they - are "appointed" by God to dictate the interpretation, enforcement and execution of His Laws.
A new generation of free thinkers, were born, and they did not agree with such idealism. These Framers and Ratifiers did not trust in any form of government that would install fear and enslave the people to the despotism of one man as first, last, and final say as to what the destiny of the citizen, and nation would be.
Without going into too much detail, the basic concept of our Judicial System is based on the Laws of Nature, or as God's Law, as some would define it. This very basic and simple truth was written in the Declaration of Independence, and sent to King George III and the English Parliament. This document also included criminal charges against the Crown as to the treatment and injustices the King forced upon his subjects. Their belief is stated in the second clause of the document as "unalienable Rights" which means that God gave each and every individual the power of self-determination and the power to govern themselves. Those "rights" cannot be taken away by Kings, tyrants, or government.
Almost 15 years later, after a hard fought war, delegates of the 13 Independent and Sovereign States gathered at Philadelphia to discuss and possibly outline a new form of government with the people of one nation as final authority to that governance.
The authority granted BY all the People to a central government was restrictive in application. They set up three independent branches of government, each with limited authority. None had any authority to Enforce Laws, a very strict power that was reserved for the States. However, with the granting of this limited authority comes the ability of Congress to govern over territories, or pre-state areas moving toward Statehood.
Congress authorized the U.S. Marshall's office to Enforce Territorial Laws, in conjunction with the Territorial Governor. Once the territory met Congressional guidelines for Statehood and was admitted into the Union, Federal Jurisdiction and Enforcement powers ended. This authority extended over Indian Reservations as well as authorized Federal Lands, such as Federal Ports and Military installations as stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 and 17.
The U.S. Marshall's Office could be considered to be, the only recognized Federal Law Enforcement Authority, under the Articles of the Constitution and restricted only to those guidelines.
With the Ratification of the 10th Amendment, it further outlined State and citizens’ rights and powers. There is no mention of a central government authority for any Enforcement Agencies. In fact, it clearly States that one of the 10th's Rights - is to Enforce States Laws under the individual State's Constitution - and only with the said State's citizen's permission. The first 9 Amendments state the rights of the Citizens - of all the States - that the central government is limited not to effect. They also deal with, and address how the Legal System is to treat law violators and define what those rights are.
Examples:
The 2nd Amendment which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The 4th Amendment....the right "to be confronted with the witness against him...., and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Very simply written, The Constitution and its first ten amendments -The Bill of Rights; most people understand exactly what it says. What it doesn't say is that these rights are unalienable and not subject to change by government or any man. And how do I know that? Because the Declaration of Independence, the Foundational Legal Document says so: Unalienable Rights.
Every Right - whether written or implied - in the Constitution are the citizen's God given - Legal Rights, and no one else’s. So now we have the basics: who is authorized to make law, how it is enforced and who is empowered to enforce those laws. That is the citizen; they retained those rights and never granted them to a central Federal government.
After the ratification of the Constitution the State governments ran fairly effectively, with very little intrusion by the Federal Government. There were minor disputes between the two entities, but not much of note. However, the issue of State Rights arose, as a conflict over collecting Tariffs between the President and the Southern State of South Carolina. Nullification became a national issue during this conflict.
After some sabre rattling and name calling by the President, eventually a behind-the-scenes compromise was agreed upon, and the issue seemingly went away. It was not to be so, the issue soon became more than just State Rights to Nullify or Secede, it included slavery, economics, land and an equal admittance of Statehood, just to name some of the conflicts involved.
Beyond sabre rattling, it escalated-erupted - and ended in a infamously bloody war between Southern and Northern States. The Northern States won with overwhelming manpower and finances. Without going into lengthy detail of the history of the Civil War, let's examine the Empowered Northern Congress after the war and their decisions toward the Southern States and the punishment for their rebellion.
The Northern Congress, were led by what were called the Radical Re-constructionists. The Congress voted to follow the plans of the Radical Reconstructionist President, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was murdered just days after the war ended, and did not see the completion of his plans, however.
Whether the plan was determined by deliberate irreverence and selfish design or not, will never be decided with 100% a-surety, the ultimate result was the Congressional removal of most all State authority before granted in the 10th. State Constitutions had to be rewritten to support the Law before all States could be re-admitted into the Union. These are just two of the circumstances that illustrate the many powers that were taken and the conditions that were required.
This new set of laws also appeared to strip the States of the policing powers and those of any future States that join the Union. The long term affects would be/are devastating to the States and the citizens living in them, alike.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius clf/db
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on the correction of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Law and Enforcement Powers Part 1
When this Nation was formed, the Framers along with the Ratifiers from the 13 original States did not have the intention of loaning or granting their hard earned liberties away. These people had just won a hard fought war and removed themselves from the royal idealism of Tyranny.
They had been the subjects of a tyrannical government that had made laws, enforced laws and executed those laws simply on the whim of the Tyrant King. Most tyrants of history expressed and believed that they - and only they - are "appointed" by God to dictate the interpretation, enforcement and execution of His Laws.
A new generation of free thinkers, were born, and they did not agree with such idealism. These Framers and Ratifiers did not trust in any form of government that would install fear and enslave the people to the despotism of one man as first, last, and final say as to what the destiny of the citizen, and nation would be.
Without going into too much detail, the basic concept of our Judicial System is based on the Laws of Nature, or as God's Law, as some would define it. This very basic and simple truth was written in the Declaration of Independence, and sent to King George III and the English Parliament. This document also included criminal charges against the Crown as to the treatment and injustices the King forced upon his subjects. Their belief is stated in the second clause of the document as "unalienable Rights" which means that God gave each and every individual the power of self-determination and the power to govern themselves. Those "rights" cannot be taken away by Kings, tyrants, or government.
Almost 15 years later, after a hard fought war, delegates of the 13 Independent and Sovereign States gathered at Philadelphia to discuss and possibly outline a new form of government with the people of one nation as final authority to that governance.
The authority granted BY all the People to a central government was restrictive in application. They set up three independent branches of government, each with limited authority. None had any authority to Enforce Laws, a very strict power that was reserved for the States. However, with the granting of this limited authority comes the ability of Congress to govern over territories, or pre-state areas moving toward Statehood.
Congress authorized the U.S. Marshall's office to Enforce Territorial Laws, in conjunction with the Territorial Governor. Once the territory met Congressional guidelines for Statehood and was admitted into the Union, Federal Jurisdiction and Enforcement powers ended. This authority extended over Indian Reservations as well as authorized Federal Lands, such as Federal Ports and Military installations as stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 and 17.
The U.S. Marshall's Office could be considered to be, the only recognized Federal Law Enforcement Authority, under the Articles of the Constitution and restricted only to those guidelines.
With the Ratification of the 10th Amendment, it further outlined State and citizens’ rights and powers. There is no mention of a central government authority for any Enforcement Agencies. In fact, it clearly States that one of the 10th's Rights - is to Enforce States Laws under the individual State's Constitution - and only with the said State's citizen's permission. The first 9 Amendments state the rights of the Citizens - of all the States - that the central government is limited not to effect. They also deal with, and address how the Legal System is to treat law violators and define what those rights are.
Examples:
The 2nd Amendment which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The 4th Amendment....the right "to be confronted with the witness against him...., and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Very simply written, The Constitution and its first ten amendments -The Bill of Rights; most people understand exactly what it says. What it doesn't say is that these rights are unalienable and not subject to change by government or any man. And how do I know that? Because the Declaration of Independence, the Foundational Legal Document says so: Unalienable Rights.
Every Right - whether written or implied - in the Constitution are the citizen's God given - Legal Rights, and no one else’s. So now we have the basics: who is authorized to make law, how it is enforced and who is empowered to enforce those laws. That is the citizen; they retained those rights and never granted them to a central Federal government.
After the ratification of the Constitution the State governments ran fairly effectively, with very little intrusion by the Federal Government. There were minor disputes between the two entities, but not much of note. However, the issue of State Rights arose, as a conflict over collecting Tariffs between the President and the Southern State of South Carolina. Nullification became a national issue during this conflict.
After some sabre rattling and name calling by the President, eventually a behind-the-scenes compromise was agreed upon, and the issue seemingly went away. It was not to be so, the issue soon became more than just State Rights to Nullify or Secede, it included slavery, economics, land and an equal admittance of Statehood, just to name some of the conflicts involved.
Beyond sabre rattling, it escalated-erupted - and ended in a infamously bloody war between Southern and Northern States. The Northern States won with overwhelming manpower and finances. Without going into lengthy detail of the history of the Civil War, let's examine the Empowered Northern Congress after the war and their decisions toward the Southern States and the punishment for their rebellion.
The Northern Congress, were led by what were called the Radical Re-constructionists. The Congress voted to follow the plans of the Radical Reconstructionist President, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was murdered just days after the war ended, and did not see the completion of his plans, however.
Whether the plan was determined by deliberate irreverence and selfish design or not, will never be decided with 100% a-surety, the ultimate result was the Congressional removal of most all State authority before granted in the 10th. State Constitutions had to be rewritten to support the Law before all States could be re-admitted into the Union. These are just two of the circumstances that illustrate the many powers that were taken and the conditions that were required.
This new set of laws also appeared to strip the States of the policing powers and those of any future States that join the Union. The long term affects would be/are devastating to the States and the citizens living in them, alike.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius clf/db
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #9 Part 2
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on the correction of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Law and Enforcement Powers Part 2
I credit, my own research, my own observations and a good portion of my adult life that I have dedicated to the law enforcement profession, I am going to make one simple statement:
Despotism or Tyranny cannot reach its peak of power without first controlling or circumventing the Judicial Process.
In a Constitutional Republic, it requires a three prong assault to succeed. But perhaps not even then will the three branches do it, as we will find out later in this writing.
The ratification of the 14th Amendment soon after the War Between the States was the first assault, with a great amount of success in breaking down a barrier of citizen protection from a central government.
Next I will address the next assault: on the Judicial Process.
The "Communist Manifesto", written by Karl Marx in 1849, was not a widely read novel until some years later. Marx did not advocate a new political system or even a new economic system, what he did - was garner age old beliefs and practices, water them down - and wrote his views on paper.
Nothing new there, until his book was mass produced by a machine capable of printing and binding books at the same time. This printing/binding machine made every word ever spoken or written by man available to the general world population, at a reasonable cost of course. The Manifesto soon becomes "chique" for politicians to read, and soon thereafter; becomes a 'modern purpose' for those politicians. Strangely enough, those politicians were either wealthy, or supported by the wealthy, the complete opposite admired class- of what Marx communism advocates. Those tenants main goal is the redistribution of wealth, to name the 'One' of many.
The other main theme of Marx was political power to control the masses. Whether this is accomplished by a single person -or the selection of an elite group -makes no difference. Power over human life...not such a novelty; it had been around since before written history.
At the end of the 19th century, the American Political system was beginning to creep from the shadows of the Founding Fathers Constitutional Intents and Purposes. Many of the people who sought to be representatives, prior to their becoming elected or appointed as politicians, had attended German Universities where "Communism/ Socialism" was the only system of government advocated as the solution to the world’s problems. After their "education" at German Universities these "students" of "communism/socialism" returned to America and often ran for public office: Some on the Democrat ticket and some on the Republican ticket. Some were elected to office, either, local, State or National. The first really famous "socialist, was President Teddy Roosevelt, although known as a Republican, he had a socialist agenda.
President Woodrow Wilson was the first self-proclaimed Progressive, which was the term chosen then/and is still the politically correct way of saying "socialist" today. The third most famous Progressive, was William Jennings Bryan, a 4-time loosing candidate for President, and debater at the infamous "Monkey Trials" in Dayton, TN, in the year 1927. He was the lead advocate for two new Amendments, to be added, in the span of little over three months apart, in the year of 1913. They are as follows:
The 16th Amendment - a law imposing a tax on the citizens of the United States. Here is what is says;
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
This amendment passed Constitutional scrutiny at that time - and the premise for what it was designed - is the Right of Congress to NOW (newly) tax the citizens, for only those enumerated (numbered) purposes stated in Article 1, sec 8, listed as:
*the raising and support of an Army and Navy, "but no Appropriations of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
*employee payrolls,
*Lands for Forts, etc,
*but only for those items listed, nothing more.
At that time, this was probably a wise thing to do. America had been thrust upon the World stage as a power to be recognized- within the view of other World powers.
What this Law did not authorize was money to be used for:
*new Federal Departments
*or public assistance programs,
*Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (which will become a Constitutional issue some twenty years later, under the Greatest Progressive President ever, until the Presidential election of 2008.
The 17th Amendment changed Article I, Section 3 - concerning how State Senators are appointed.
Originally, two Senators were appointed by the State Legislators to serve a 6 year term representing their State at the Federal level. Intent of the Founding Fathers and Framers for this was two-fold; the qualifications to be a Senator were at a higher standard - requiring experience in the process of government and a minimum age of 35 to qualify for office. It also kept the junior House of Representatives, who served only two years terms in check, in matters dealing with budget and law restraints.
The Senate had to approve all laws passed by the House. The Senate also had to approve all appointments made by the President to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, ambassadorships, and tried all impeachment cases.
With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the two Senators from each State, the Senators would now be directly elected by the people of the Senatorial Districts of their State.
Congressional reasoning behind this amendment was prompted by the accusations of State Legislators of acts of bribery to obtain Senatorial appointments.
Eleven cases were cited, only one was suspect, and none were proven, however the Amendment was ratified anyway on April 8, 1913.
Chief supporter - was Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan -who also certified the amendment's ratification. There is also some circumstantial evidence, as to the number of States that did ratify this amendment-the number is short of the required Constitutional requirement.
What this amendment effectively does, is strip the last and final barrier of protection of the States and their citizens -from an over-authoritarian central government. Many consider this amendment an Unconstitutional Law; for that reason, and time will show, that even with well-meant intentions, the abuse of this Amendment will also be in play in about 20 years following its ratification.
So let's take stock of what has happened as far as additional Federal Law Enforcement agencies. Nothing.
However, with the 16th Amendment creates the Internal Revenue System under the Department of Treasury. The purpose is to collect taxes, audit returns and have some degree of "enforcement" with punitive administrative sanctions, or so the story goes. The 'nothing' for the Federal Law Enforcement agencies thus far, is about to change with the ratification of the 18th Amendment, Prohibition.
The 18th amendment prohibited the general population from the consumption or manufacture of alcohol. The Temperance Movement finally had their say, but it was to be short lived.
During the time span of this Law, Congress authorized Government Men, or more commonly called "Revenuers" to enforce prohibition Laws. Raiding distilleries, "speak easys" and moonshine runners was the order of the day.
Elliot Ness and his squad became the most famous of the "g-men" and became known as the "Untouchables", a story more than a few movies have been made from. Eventually, the American People pressed Congress to repeal this law, which they did with the 21st Amendment. However, the Government Men stayed around -to still arrest distillers of hard alcohol under the Whiskey Tax Law of late 1790's.
'Ya gotta pay taxes if you're gonna distill alcohol and sell it...'Even though under the authority of the Department of the Treasury this would change, along with a few other things by mid-1930.
With the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the second cousin of Teddy Roosevelt was the first climatic Progressive move to the top. From the very first, FDR made no bones about setting his progressive agenda in place. He pressed Congress to pass the Social Security Act in 1935 and it became known as "Old age, Survivors and Disability Insurance.
Before passage, a Senator in the Senate Finance Committee asked Secretary of Labor Francis Perkins. "Isn't this Socialism?" Perkins said it was not, but he Senator continues, "isn't this a teeny-weeny bit of socialism?" Along with this law -the Federal Insurance Contribution Act tax was passed. Although the deduction was supposed to be voluntary, the Law required deductions from the wage of all earners pay check.
The Social Security Act was the first large public funded Government program. Its purpose provided that in the future, these collected monies would support the dependent population- and be provided by the current hard working men and women's tax dollars. The program was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor, which is under the direct authority of the President.
More programs were added as a result of the Stock Market Crash of 1929. Roosevelt needed labor, but those in industry had no money to operate and hire labor for production. Banks failed, small business failed, and the unemployed and their families were starving. Work Programs were created to hire the unemployed -to build highways, dams for electrical power, bridges, mine minerals, or cut timber. These were some examples of the Worker Programs administered through the Department of Labor. Government funded projects -which soon ran the National Debt further in the red.
Also, along about this time, the United States Supreme Court publicly announced they would no longer enforce the enumerated tax clause. How and why they reached that decision is a strange tale, so I am going way back to Philadelphia in the year of 1787 and Alexander Hamilton.
Hamilton was one of only a few delegates that promoted a large central government and taxation -with loosely constructed restrictions. At one point, Hamilton left the delegation and returned shortly before the vote, here is what he said, he stated his "dislike of the (Constitution Scheme of Government in General," then admitted, "No man's ideas were more remote from the plan than his own were known to be."
Hamilton went on to be the major author of the Federalist Papers and played a key role in convincing and speaking for Ratification of the Constitution. After ratification, Hamilton went back to his advocating for a Large and Powerful Central Government, he had no followers.
However, as Secretary of the Treasury, he wrote his "Report on Manufactures" advocating the original theory that the Taxation Clause empowered Congress to spend money on most anything it wanted. Thankfully many of the Ratifiers who were now in Congress did not buy his proposal at the time...the subject would do much better 150 years later. The U.S. Supreme Court had been reading Hamilton it appears, and decided they liked it. They disclosed their intentions publicly - to support Hamilton and his empowerment of a large central government.
Nine robed Judges decided, and that decision brings us now, at this point- where Congress and the President are at liberty to spend tax money for anything under the general Welfare clause, and they do so routinely as a necessary expenditure.
Even though Roosevelt did not create any new Federal Departments, he did and they were realized in support of the British war effort against Nazi Germany. The Lend-Lease Act which supplied millions of American Tax dollars for war material to England, were authorized with no expectations of repayment.
This is important because later Presidents would use this tax loop hole to create more Federal Departments - funded by tax dollars -with the approval of Congress - to support more government dependency programs. This tax also allowed the Presidents to financially and militarily support Foreign Governments with American tax dollars.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius clf/db
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on the correction of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Law and Enforcement Powers Part 2
I credit, my own research, my own observations and a good portion of my adult life that I have dedicated to the law enforcement profession, I am going to make one simple statement:
Despotism or Tyranny cannot reach its peak of power without first controlling or circumventing the Judicial Process.
In a Constitutional Republic, it requires a three prong assault to succeed. But perhaps not even then will the three branches do it, as we will find out later in this writing.
The ratification of the 14th Amendment soon after the War Between the States was the first assault, with a great amount of success in breaking down a barrier of citizen protection from a central government.
Next I will address the next assault: on the Judicial Process.
The "Communist Manifesto", written by Karl Marx in 1849, was not a widely read novel until some years later. Marx did not advocate a new political system or even a new economic system, what he did - was garner age old beliefs and practices, water them down - and wrote his views on paper.
Nothing new there, until his book was mass produced by a machine capable of printing and binding books at the same time. This printing/binding machine made every word ever spoken or written by man available to the general world population, at a reasonable cost of course. The Manifesto soon becomes "chique" for politicians to read, and soon thereafter; becomes a 'modern purpose' for those politicians. Strangely enough, those politicians were either wealthy, or supported by the wealthy, the complete opposite admired class- of what Marx communism advocates. Those tenants main goal is the redistribution of wealth, to name the 'One' of many.
The other main theme of Marx was political power to control the masses. Whether this is accomplished by a single person -or the selection of an elite group -makes no difference. Power over human life...not such a novelty; it had been around since before written history.
At the end of the 19th century, the American Political system was beginning to creep from the shadows of the Founding Fathers Constitutional Intents and Purposes. Many of the people who sought to be representatives, prior to their becoming elected or appointed as politicians, had attended German Universities where "Communism/ Socialism" was the only system of government advocated as the solution to the world’s problems. After their "education" at German Universities these "students" of "communism/socialism" returned to America and often ran for public office: Some on the Democrat ticket and some on the Republican ticket. Some were elected to office, either, local, State or National. The first really famous "socialist, was President Teddy Roosevelt, although known as a Republican, he had a socialist agenda.
President Woodrow Wilson was the first self-proclaimed Progressive, which was the term chosen then/and is still the politically correct way of saying "socialist" today. The third most famous Progressive, was William Jennings Bryan, a 4-time loosing candidate for President, and debater at the infamous "Monkey Trials" in Dayton, TN, in the year 1927. He was the lead advocate for two new Amendments, to be added, in the span of little over three months apart, in the year of 1913. They are as follows:
The 16th Amendment - a law imposing a tax on the citizens of the United States. Here is what is says;
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
This amendment passed Constitutional scrutiny at that time - and the premise for what it was designed - is the Right of Congress to NOW (newly) tax the citizens, for only those enumerated (numbered) purposes stated in Article 1, sec 8, listed as:
*the raising and support of an Army and Navy, "but no Appropriations of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
*employee payrolls,
*Lands for Forts, etc,
*but only for those items listed, nothing more.
At that time, this was probably a wise thing to do. America had been thrust upon the World stage as a power to be recognized- within the view of other World powers.
What this Law did not authorize was money to be used for:
*new Federal Departments
*or public assistance programs,
*Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (which will become a Constitutional issue some twenty years later, under the Greatest Progressive President ever, until the Presidential election of 2008.
The 17th Amendment changed Article I, Section 3 - concerning how State Senators are appointed.
Originally, two Senators were appointed by the State Legislators to serve a 6 year term representing their State at the Federal level. Intent of the Founding Fathers and Framers for this was two-fold; the qualifications to be a Senator were at a higher standard - requiring experience in the process of government and a minimum age of 35 to qualify for office. It also kept the junior House of Representatives, who served only two years terms in check, in matters dealing with budget and law restraints.
The Senate had to approve all laws passed by the House. The Senate also had to approve all appointments made by the President to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, ambassadorships, and tried all impeachment cases.
With the passage of the 17th Amendment, the two Senators from each State, the Senators would now be directly elected by the people of the Senatorial Districts of their State.
Congressional reasoning behind this amendment was prompted by the accusations of State Legislators of acts of bribery to obtain Senatorial appointments.
Eleven cases were cited, only one was suspect, and none were proven, however the Amendment was ratified anyway on April 8, 1913.
Chief supporter - was Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan -who also certified the amendment's ratification. There is also some circumstantial evidence, as to the number of States that did ratify this amendment-the number is short of the required Constitutional requirement.
What this amendment effectively does, is strip the last and final barrier of protection of the States and their citizens -from an over-authoritarian central government. Many consider this amendment an Unconstitutional Law; for that reason, and time will show, that even with well-meant intentions, the abuse of this Amendment will also be in play in about 20 years following its ratification.
So let's take stock of what has happened as far as additional Federal Law Enforcement agencies. Nothing.
However, with the 16th Amendment creates the Internal Revenue System under the Department of Treasury. The purpose is to collect taxes, audit returns and have some degree of "enforcement" with punitive administrative sanctions, or so the story goes. The 'nothing' for the Federal Law Enforcement agencies thus far, is about to change with the ratification of the 18th Amendment, Prohibition.
The 18th amendment prohibited the general population from the consumption or manufacture of alcohol. The Temperance Movement finally had their say, but it was to be short lived.
During the time span of this Law, Congress authorized Government Men, or more commonly called "Revenuers" to enforce prohibition Laws. Raiding distilleries, "speak easys" and moonshine runners was the order of the day.
Elliot Ness and his squad became the most famous of the "g-men" and became known as the "Untouchables", a story more than a few movies have been made from. Eventually, the American People pressed Congress to repeal this law, which they did with the 21st Amendment. However, the Government Men stayed around -to still arrest distillers of hard alcohol under the Whiskey Tax Law of late 1790's.
'Ya gotta pay taxes if you're gonna distill alcohol and sell it...'Even though under the authority of the Department of the Treasury this would change, along with a few other things by mid-1930.
With the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the second cousin of Teddy Roosevelt was the first climatic Progressive move to the top. From the very first, FDR made no bones about setting his progressive agenda in place. He pressed Congress to pass the Social Security Act in 1935 and it became known as "Old age, Survivors and Disability Insurance.
Before passage, a Senator in the Senate Finance Committee asked Secretary of Labor Francis Perkins. "Isn't this Socialism?" Perkins said it was not, but he Senator continues, "isn't this a teeny-weeny bit of socialism?" Along with this law -the Federal Insurance Contribution Act tax was passed. Although the deduction was supposed to be voluntary, the Law required deductions from the wage of all earners pay check.
The Social Security Act was the first large public funded Government program. Its purpose provided that in the future, these collected monies would support the dependent population- and be provided by the current hard working men and women's tax dollars. The program was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor, which is under the direct authority of the President.
More programs were added as a result of the Stock Market Crash of 1929. Roosevelt needed labor, but those in industry had no money to operate and hire labor for production. Banks failed, small business failed, and the unemployed and their families were starving. Work Programs were created to hire the unemployed -to build highways, dams for electrical power, bridges, mine minerals, or cut timber. These were some examples of the Worker Programs administered through the Department of Labor. Government funded projects -which soon ran the National Debt further in the red.
Also, along about this time, the United States Supreme Court publicly announced they would no longer enforce the enumerated tax clause. How and why they reached that decision is a strange tale, so I am going way back to Philadelphia in the year of 1787 and Alexander Hamilton.
Hamilton was one of only a few delegates that promoted a large central government and taxation -with loosely constructed restrictions. At one point, Hamilton left the delegation and returned shortly before the vote, here is what he said, he stated his "dislike of the (Constitution Scheme of Government in General," then admitted, "No man's ideas were more remote from the plan than his own were known to be."
Hamilton went on to be the major author of the Federalist Papers and played a key role in convincing and speaking for Ratification of the Constitution. After ratification, Hamilton went back to his advocating for a Large and Powerful Central Government, he had no followers.
However, as Secretary of the Treasury, he wrote his "Report on Manufactures" advocating the original theory that the Taxation Clause empowered Congress to spend money on most anything it wanted. Thankfully many of the Ratifiers who were now in Congress did not buy his proposal at the time...the subject would do much better 150 years later. The U.S. Supreme Court had been reading Hamilton it appears, and decided they liked it. They disclosed their intentions publicly - to support Hamilton and his empowerment of a large central government.
Nine robed Judges decided, and that decision brings us now, at this point- where Congress and the President are at liberty to spend tax money for anything under the general Welfare clause, and they do so routinely as a necessary expenditure.
Even though Roosevelt did not create any new Federal Departments, he did and they were realized in support of the British war effort against Nazi Germany. The Lend-Lease Act which supplied millions of American Tax dollars for war material to England, were authorized with no expectations of repayment.
This is important because later Presidents would use this tax loop hole to create more Federal Departments - funded by tax dollars -with the approval of Congress - to support more government dependency programs. This tax also allowed the Presidents to financially and militarily support Foreign Governments with American tax dollars.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius clf/db
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #9 Part 3
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on the correction of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Law and Enforcement Powers Part 3
In the future beyond the ratification, Presidents and Congress's would be allowed to use tax monies to bail out huge cooperation(s) from debt, support union retirement funds, fund special interests groups, and many others- but more importantly, finance the Enforcement Agencies to "enforce" Departmental directives.
At present count there are 19 Federal Departments, funded by tax money, each has Enforcement clauses -and all are under the direct control of the President. Those agencies include:
The U.S. Marshalls office,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
Immigration and Naturalization,
Drug Enforcement Agency,
Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Forrest Service,
U.S. Coast Guard,
Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Law Enforcement Officers,
The Department of Homeland Security which supposedly is an umbrella organization to coordinate Terrorist intelligence and to determine intervention against attack.
I don't know if I got them all, but what I posted is more than enough I would think. Why does our Federal Government need so many Law Enforcement personnel, but maybe more importantly, to who's allegiance to those people serve?
Three Constitutional barriers have now been breached - done so by the mentioned amendments.
The 14th by taking most of the State Sovereignty away, the 16th by taxing citizens for items not mentioned in Article 1 sec. 8 and lastly, the 17th by eliminating State representation of Senators appointments with a direct vote of the State citizens. However, the last and final barrier is extremely difficult to breach.
Every single State Constitution has a Judicial system within it. It gives the State the right to make laws, enforce those laws, and execute those laws with the people's consent. Each State Constitution gives the Enforcement authority to one person in each county. This person is elected to that position and has several Constitutional mandates:
*maintain a correctional facility,
*collect taxes,
*serve civil summons
*and Enforce county, State and Constitutional Law.
This person is called the Sheriff and is the highest Law Enforcement Officer in the County. As an example, if there are 36 counties in a State, there are 36 Sheriffs, each and every one are by State Constitutional designation the ultimate Law Enforcement Officer.
The idea of this has many variables but the most obvious is a local control Law Enforcement, keeping the policing powers within the States. Sheriffs answer to no higher Law Enforcement person, either within the State or Federally. Sheriff's like all law enforcement officers have an oath of office to uphold defend and support the Constitution of the United States, their State Constitution and the county ordinances, so help them God.
Sheriffs, Sheriff’s deputies, city Police officers or Marshalls, State Police and/or Highway Patrol are not subject to any Federal Law Enforcement officers, Departments, politicians, (Federal, State or local) nor Federal Prosecutor, State Prosecutor or District Prosecutor. Sheriffs answer to, and for the people and no one else. Sheriffs have no political agenda as a servant in that position. Even though an elected position, Sheriffs have no political influence when acting with in their duties.
The progressive agenda -to present day has done a good job at deception -defining who really has Law Enforcement authority. That is what this paper is really all about. Anyone that controls -who is arrested, who is prosecuted, and who is incarcerated, has the greatest power of all.
Of course, the Constitution is the very foundation of Law, how it is to be applied and who is to apply it. But the Framers and Ratifiers were very wise. When the structure was developed, it left the most powerful aspect directly in control by the people at the very basic government application; the County. These county level government are exactly what the Framers intended, local control of local government- so any abuse of authority -can quickly and easily be dealt with.
There is a movement afoot to repeal the three most offensive amendments from the Constitution. The 28th amendment is a corrective measure to restore the original intent and purpose of the Constitution, which will also reign in excessive spending by the government, reset Article 1, sec 8 to Congressional restrictions and return State Representation as original meant in Article 1 section 3. This will also, most importantly, return the Sovereignty to each and every State of the Union.
In summation; nowhere in the original context of the Constitution, does it give the President, the Congress, or the U.S. Supreme Court any Law Enforcement authority? Not until the ratification of three abusive and usurped amendments: the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments - does a Law Enforcement Agency appear.
One final suggestion, visit your County Sheriff, not a deputy, and see where he or she stands on the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment - The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (at the 1791 level) and not at today's progressive standards.
If they agree, keep electing them, if not - get someone else in there to defend those rights and protect you from the over-reaching Federal Law Enforcement officers that have no Authority to Enforce State Laws.
You the people have last and final say of the laws in this county. Not the Legislators, nor Senators, nor the President, nor the U.S. Supreme Court, nor anyone nor anything in between.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius clf/db
cooperative research by clf/lb
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting Federal Government, you are called upon to deliberate on the correction of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Law and Enforcement Powers Part 3
In the future beyond the ratification, Presidents and Congress's would be allowed to use tax monies to bail out huge cooperation(s) from debt, support union retirement funds, fund special interests groups, and many others- but more importantly, finance the Enforcement Agencies to "enforce" Departmental directives.
At present count there are 19 Federal Departments, funded by tax money, each has Enforcement clauses -and all are under the direct control of the President. Those agencies include:
The U.S. Marshalls office,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
Immigration and Naturalization,
Drug Enforcement Agency,
Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Forrest Service,
U.S. Coast Guard,
Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Law Enforcement Officers,
The Department of Homeland Security which supposedly is an umbrella organization to coordinate Terrorist intelligence and to determine intervention against attack.
I don't know if I got them all, but what I posted is more than enough I would think. Why does our Federal Government need so many Law Enforcement personnel, but maybe more importantly, to who's allegiance to those people serve?
Three Constitutional barriers have now been breached - done so by the mentioned amendments.
The 14th by taking most of the State Sovereignty away, the 16th by taxing citizens for items not mentioned in Article 1 sec. 8 and lastly, the 17th by eliminating State representation of Senators appointments with a direct vote of the State citizens. However, the last and final barrier is extremely difficult to breach.
Every single State Constitution has a Judicial system within it. It gives the State the right to make laws, enforce those laws, and execute those laws with the people's consent. Each State Constitution gives the Enforcement authority to one person in each county. This person is elected to that position and has several Constitutional mandates:
*maintain a correctional facility,
*collect taxes,
*serve civil summons
*and Enforce county, State and Constitutional Law.
This person is called the Sheriff and is the highest Law Enforcement Officer in the County. As an example, if there are 36 counties in a State, there are 36 Sheriffs, each and every one are by State Constitutional designation the ultimate Law Enforcement Officer.
The idea of this has many variables but the most obvious is a local control Law Enforcement, keeping the policing powers within the States. Sheriffs answer to no higher Law Enforcement person, either within the State or Federally. Sheriff's like all law enforcement officers have an oath of office to uphold defend and support the Constitution of the United States, their State Constitution and the county ordinances, so help them God.
Sheriffs, Sheriff’s deputies, city Police officers or Marshalls, State Police and/or Highway Patrol are not subject to any Federal Law Enforcement officers, Departments, politicians, (Federal, State or local) nor Federal Prosecutor, State Prosecutor or District Prosecutor. Sheriffs answer to, and for the people and no one else. Sheriffs have no political agenda as a servant in that position. Even though an elected position, Sheriffs have no political influence when acting with in their duties.
The progressive agenda -to present day has done a good job at deception -defining who really has Law Enforcement authority. That is what this paper is really all about. Anyone that controls -who is arrested, who is prosecuted, and who is incarcerated, has the greatest power of all.
Of course, the Constitution is the very foundation of Law, how it is to be applied and who is to apply it. But the Framers and Ratifiers were very wise. When the structure was developed, it left the most powerful aspect directly in control by the people at the very basic government application; the County. These county level government are exactly what the Framers intended, local control of local government- so any abuse of authority -can quickly and easily be dealt with.
There is a movement afoot to repeal the three most offensive amendments from the Constitution. The 28th amendment is a corrective measure to restore the original intent and purpose of the Constitution, which will also reign in excessive spending by the government, reset Article 1, sec 8 to Congressional restrictions and return State Representation as original meant in Article 1 section 3. This will also, most importantly, return the Sovereignty to each and every State of the Union.
In summation; nowhere in the original context of the Constitution, does it give the President, the Congress, or the U.S. Supreme Court any Law Enforcement authority? Not until the ratification of three abusive and usurped amendments: the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments - does a Law Enforcement Agency appear.
One final suggestion, visit your County Sheriff, not a deputy, and see where he or she stands on the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment - The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (at the 1791 level) and not at today's progressive standards.
If they agree, keep electing them, if not - get someone else in there to defend those rights and protect you from the over-reaching Federal Law Enforcement officers that have no Authority to Enforce State Laws.
You the people have last and final say of the laws in this county. Not the Legislators, nor Senators, nor the President, nor the U.S. Supreme Court, nor anyone nor anything in between.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius clf/db
cooperative research by clf/lb
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #10
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
The American Empire
When the United States Constitution was formally adopted, it culminated years of uncertainty in the manner of governance of the former colonies. A vicious, bloody protracted war with England had resulted in the hurried acceptance of the Articles of Confederation. These articles were not voted on in referendum by the people of the colonies, they were at war. They were written in haste, sent to the divergent colonies in haste, and as adopted in haste. In the period following the conflict, leaders with benefit of time for reflection, began to call for a more fitting, long-lasting form of government. The Annapolis convention was the first attempt, having solved very little the Philadelphia convention was called. Yet these great leaders, men who had led the colonies through the trails of war, did not wish to push through another form of government without consulting those for whom the revolution had been fought. The proceeds of their labour, their best thoughts, and their finest efforts would be submitted to the average man for approval. No, this would not be the actions of the elite, the decisions of a class of men who supposedly, by virtue of their position, knew best. They sought the consent and approval of the governed.
The result engendered confidence from the leaders of many other countries. Trade increased, treaties were made and friendships established. Yes there was envy and suspicion, but there was also the knowledge that as a unified group of thirteen independent sovereign nations, there was strength and the certainty that these thirteen, now unified separate nations had jointly beaten what was then considered the most formidable national military force on earth, the British.
At about the same time as the constitution was adopted and President Washington was taking office, a Kingdom which had come to the aid of the colonists was in the flames of revolution. The French had revolted against the King. When the final dust settled after a Coup D’etat Napoleon was the ruler. So by the beginning of the year 1800 the world had changed. Our first President, George Washington was leaving office and a peaceful transfer of power was being watched. Watched by a world more accustomed to the force of war or the intrigues of a Coup D’etat to change rulers. We had set the example. We had become the beacon to be trusted, consulted and look to with envy and respect. We had also become the place of refuge; the place looked to as freedom.
For those very well versed, I will acknowledge, we made a great many mistakes. We had wars with other countries, we conquered a wild open continent occupied by a different type of person who led a very different lifestyle, and we took land by force. We forced people who had lived on the continent for centuries, American Indians, Spanish, Mexican and others to conform or leave or die. Of that there is no doubt; we as a nation have many questions to answer. We had what was coined as “Manifest Destiny”. We, as a people, believed it our destiny to rule the continent from sea to shining sea. We also dabbled in foreign conquest, the Spanish American war left us with colonies, or as we preferred to call them possessions or protectorates. We never wanted to see ourselves as ruling an empire. That was for Kings and Emperors that was Un-American.
When we entered World War One, it was on the understanding that upon victory, we would bring our boys home. The same was said by Roosevelt upon entering World War Two, we sought no conquest of territory, we sought to rule no other lands, we sought the freedom of those we fought for and the liberation of those oppressed under the yoke of Nazi and Fascist regimes. But we didn't come home, did we?
Instead we established a line of defence against communism, against the former allies within the Soviet Union. We have “The Bomb” and we made no excuse for ordering others to do our bidding. Under President Truman we took the former Kasernes the military bases and barracks occupied by the former German military and made them our own. This began the process which continues today. There are fewer actual US Military bases in Germany, yet with the technology today.
The former War Department became the Defence Department, for it is always much easier to extract the hard earned money of the American tax payer for defence than for war. It was further propagandized that we had made a huge mistake in drawing down our military after World War One. We would not allow that to happen again, next time we would be ready. No more sneak attacks like the one on Pearl Harbour. After all, what country would be foolish enough to attack the world's greatest and strongest military. Yet Congress, in all the years following the close of World War Two has never declared war. They have authorized actions of the President, they have funded the excursions of the Military in numerous actions over the ensuing decades, yet have never declared war and put that greatest of all military into full force. Even the Korean Peninsula is still divided and technically still at war, with only a truce to halt the actions, a truce now just more than sixty years old with no end in sight.
We have, at least to the best information available to this author, more than 138 military bases around the world. To this number one must add the number of advisers have stationed around the world and the number of secret sites undoubtedly staffed worldwide. Has this omnipresence added to or detracted from our safety.
President Eisenhower believed we could greatly reduce our military numbers by creating an American arsenal of nuclear weapons such as the world had never thought possible. It is left to the readers imagination, but some have put the estimates at more than thirty thousand weapons developed and deployed during the 50's and early 60's. These were not toys, these were weapons developed and deployed within the concept of “MAD” (Mutually Assured Destruction) phase of the cold war. The arms race brought us to the very brink of human annihilation on more than one occasion. We, as citizens, have no means of knowing exactly how many times such weapons were use in threat of force, or how often others were forced to back down on their own concerns for fear of them.
This was by no means the first use of fear to extract cooperation or submission of other cultures and nations. Remember, it was Teddy Roosevelt, who coined the phrase “Walk Softly but Carry a Big Stick”. He used many means and methods to display his, “Big Stick”. Chief amongst these methods was to put the finest ships of our navy on display near the coasts of other countries while he used the display to draw the attention of the leaders of the countries concerned.
Today, technology seems to be the weapon of choice. The recent reports, obviously more widely available in Europe than in the United States, declare the results of the spying done on an almost individual citizen basis of countries who are thought to be our allies. The reports point to the use of information gathering on the citizens of at least German, Italy, Spain among our major allies and possibly the entire group of EU countries. Much of the specific information I have referred to comes from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/withdrawing-us-forces-from-europe-weakens-america and other reports of the Heritage foundation, along with news reports both print and televised around the European Union.
To doubt the meddling into the affairs of our allies, or the force used to intimidate our allies into actions they would not otherwise take is to ignore the recent events concerning Snowden and others involved in this affair. To cite two incidents of recent import let us refer to the forced grounding of the the Bolivian President's plane in July of this year. The CIA it is suspected informed the various governments of Spain, France, Italy and Portugal they were sure Edward Snowden was aboard the plane and they wanted him. The countries refused admittance of clearance of the aircraft, which effectively denied the plane access to international airspace. This forced the plane to land in Austria and the diplomatic row ensued. In fact, Snowden was not on board the plane.
What the incident did was to expose the question ask, just days later, during a meeting of several South American leaders, who is in charge? Are the leaders of the several European countries in charge, or is the CIA in charge? Do those leaders control their airspace or is the CIA in charge? Admittedly these are inflammatory statements or question, yet there are ask in public by the Presidents of South American countries, in public and in front of accepting audiences. Are these actions enhancing our security in the world? This is directly from the report of the BBC on the subject; The Bolivian president blamed Washington for pressurizing European countries into refusing him passage, and threatened to close the US embassy in La Paz.
"We have dignity, sovereignty. Without America, we are better off politically and democratically," he said.
If this were an isolated incident, that would be bad but just recently another incident calls into question the ability of the US to bully its allies into actions they would otherwise not engage in. The incident occurred on 19 August 2013, at Heathrow airport. The partner of Guardian reporter Greenwald was returning to Brazil where he lives with Greenwald. His flight took him through Heathrow while en-route. He was not entering the UK except as an international traveler on an international flight on a routine stop over. He was taken to a small room where under the schedule 7 terrorism act of the UK he was questioned by 6 as yet unidentified agents for the maximum 9 hours allowed for detention. All of his electronic possessions were taken from him to be downloaded and all of his personal papers and belongings were searched, of course under the terrorism act.
It is as yet unclear whether the actions were taken solely on the basis of the UK government, or if they were prompted by the US government or a combination of both. The Brazilian ambassador to the UK has asked for explanations and assurances that Brazilian citizens would not face this in the future. The Brazilian government has not stated any actions as yet in regards to the US government.
However, my questions are the same as before, is our image enhanced, is our security enhanced and do we actually believe we can expect willing cooperation in any efforts we may wish to take in the future with these governments?
My position is the actions of our government has taken on the complexion of a paranoid, tyrannical, imperial entity treating its allies much the same as Rome treated the puppet governors of the client states within the Roman empire during the decline. Perpetual fear and perpetual bullying was the order of the day. Always concerned with the next plot against the emperor. Always concerned about how the actions of the empires representatives would be viewed in Rome. Till the day the invaders conquered Rome. Rome had withdrawn the legions into the heart of the empire during the last days. Some legions had been recalled simply because the constant harassment was not worth the financial cost to the failing empire; others were recalled in fear of eminent danger to the heart of Rome. When the true Barbarians were at the gates, the supposed allies either couldn't or wouldn't assist and the worst fears came to pass. The dark ages fell upon the world. Yes, parts of the former empire limped along for several centuries, but the might of the Roman Empire was gone.
If, we as a people, do not act to rein in this out of control government, America will be gone. This world is bully bent on obedience not only of its own citizens but the subjugation of their own allies, the same fate could and most likely will befall our empire. We, as a United States, under a constitutional government, have only existed a little more than two hundred years, well short of the time accomplished by other empires such as the Romans, or the Spanish empire, or even closer to our hearts and imagination, the venerable British Empire. Yet is it empire we seek?
I do not believe that is what was envisioned when the constitution set up a three part government of equal powers. I, personally, do not want the world to perceive, that under the direction of Obama, the CIA can demand the grounding of another democratically elected leader to have his plane searched as though he were a common smuggler. I do not want the world to even question whether an international traveler, who may be peripherally involved with a news story is taken to a small room stripped of his possessions and intimidated for nine hours.
It is my heartfelt belief it is time for patriots to act within the confines of the US Constitution, the very document designed just for the purpose of the will of the people to be followed to act now. The world watched while the French King and Queen were beheaded in front of cheering crowds. The world watched when Napoleon became Emperor. Yet the world marveled at the peaceful transition of power when President Washington was succeeded by the duly elected President Adams. From all I have recently read, from all I have spoken to, either plain spoken common man or highly educated well placed European citizens, they see things have changed. We, as patriotic countrymen, have a duty, charged upon us by those who have laid the foundations. They have given us different levers of powers. The have given us the ballot box, failing that they have given us the powers of impeachment, failing that they have given us the Article V convention option. Please let us not hesitate to act peacefully, within the confines of that which has been designed for purpose. Let us act when our chances of success are good. For if we don't the Barbarians may soon be at our gates. Will our allies look upon our time of need and aid us, or let us fall and say good riddance?
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius
clf/gd
The American Empire
When the United States Constitution was formally adopted, it culminated years of uncertainty in the manner of governance of the former colonies. A vicious, bloody protracted war with England had resulted in the hurried acceptance of the Articles of Confederation. These articles were not voted on in referendum by the people of the colonies, they were at war. They were written in haste, sent to the divergent colonies in haste, and as adopted in haste. In the period following the conflict, leaders with benefit of time for reflection, began to call for a more fitting, long-lasting form of government. The Annapolis convention was the first attempt, having solved very little the Philadelphia convention was called. Yet these great leaders, men who had led the colonies through the trails of war, did not wish to push through another form of government without consulting those for whom the revolution had been fought. The proceeds of their labour, their best thoughts, and their finest efforts would be submitted to the average man for approval. No, this would not be the actions of the elite, the decisions of a class of men who supposedly, by virtue of their position, knew best. They sought the consent and approval of the governed.
The result engendered confidence from the leaders of many other countries. Trade increased, treaties were made and friendships established. Yes there was envy and suspicion, but there was also the knowledge that as a unified group of thirteen independent sovereign nations, there was strength and the certainty that these thirteen, now unified separate nations had jointly beaten what was then considered the most formidable national military force on earth, the British.
At about the same time as the constitution was adopted and President Washington was taking office, a Kingdom which had come to the aid of the colonists was in the flames of revolution. The French had revolted against the King. When the final dust settled after a Coup D’etat Napoleon was the ruler. So by the beginning of the year 1800 the world had changed. Our first President, George Washington was leaving office and a peaceful transfer of power was being watched. Watched by a world more accustomed to the force of war or the intrigues of a Coup D’etat to change rulers. We had set the example. We had become the beacon to be trusted, consulted and look to with envy and respect. We had also become the place of refuge; the place looked to as freedom.
For those very well versed, I will acknowledge, we made a great many mistakes. We had wars with other countries, we conquered a wild open continent occupied by a different type of person who led a very different lifestyle, and we took land by force. We forced people who had lived on the continent for centuries, American Indians, Spanish, Mexican and others to conform or leave or die. Of that there is no doubt; we as a nation have many questions to answer. We had what was coined as “Manifest Destiny”. We, as a people, believed it our destiny to rule the continent from sea to shining sea. We also dabbled in foreign conquest, the Spanish American war left us with colonies, or as we preferred to call them possessions or protectorates. We never wanted to see ourselves as ruling an empire. That was for Kings and Emperors that was Un-American.
When we entered World War One, it was on the understanding that upon victory, we would bring our boys home. The same was said by Roosevelt upon entering World War Two, we sought no conquest of territory, we sought to rule no other lands, we sought the freedom of those we fought for and the liberation of those oppressed under the yoke of Nazi and Fascist regimes. But we didn't come home, did we?
Instead we established a line of defence against communism, against the former allies within the Soviet Union. We have “The Bomb” and we made no excuse for ordering others to do our bidding. Under President Truman we took the former Kasernes the military bases and barracks occupied by the former German military and made them our own. This began the process which continues today. There are fewer actual US Military bases in Germany, yet with the technology today.
The former War Department became the Defence Department, for it is always much easier to extract the hard earned money of the American tax payer for defence than for war. It was further propagandized that we had made a huge mistake in drawing down our military after World War One. We would not allow that to happen again, next time we would be ready. No more sneak attacks like the one on Pearl Harbour. After all, what country would be foolish enough to attack the world's greatest and strongest military. Yet Congress, in all the years following the close of World War Two has never declared war. They have authorized actions of the President, they have funded the excursions of the Military in numerous actions over the ensuing decades, yet have never declared war and put that greatest of all military into full force. Even the Korean Peninsula is still divided and technically still at war, with only a truce to halt the actions, a truce now just more than sixty years old with no end in sight.
We have, at least to the best information available to this author, more than 138 military bases around the world. To this number one must add the number of advisers have stationed around the world and the number of secret sites undoubtedly staffed worldwide. Has this omnipresence added to or detracted from our safety.
President Eisenhower believed we could greatly reduce our military numbers by creating an American arsenal of nuclear weapons such as the world had never thought possible. It is left to the readers imagination, but some have put the estimates at more than thirty thousand weapons developed and deployed during the 50's and early 60's. These were not toys, these were weapons developed and deployed within the concept of “MAD” (Mutually Assured Destruction) phase of the cold war. The arms race brought us to the very brink of human annihilation on more than one occasion. We, as citizens, have no means of knowing exactly how many times such weapons were use in threat of force, or how often others were forced to back down on their own concerns for fear of them.
This was by no means the first use of fear to extract cooperation or submission of other cultures and nations. Remember, it was Teddy Roosevelt, who coined the phrase “Walk Softly but Carry a Big Stick”. He used many means and methods to display his, “Big Stick”. Chief amongst these methods was to put the finest ships of our navy on display near the coasts of other countries while he used the display to draw the attention of the leaders of the countries concerned.
Today, technology seems to be the weapon of choice. The recent reports, obviously more widely available in Europe than in the United States, declare the results of the spying done on an almost individual citizen basis of countries who are thought to be our allies. The reports point to the use of information gathering on the citizens of at least German, Italy, Spain among our major allies and possibly the entire group of EU countries. Much of the specific information I have referred to comes from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/withdrawing-us-forces-from-europe-weakens-america and other reports of the Heritage foundation, along with news reports both print and televised around the European Union.
To doubt the meddling into the affairs of our allies, or the force used to intimidate our allies into actions they would not otherwise take is to ignore the recent events concerning Snowden and others involved in this affair. To cite two incidents of recent import let us refer to the forced grounding of the the Bolivian President's plane in July of this year. The CIA it is suspected informed the various governments of Spain, France, Italy and Portugal they were sure Edward Snowden was aboard the plane and they wanted him. The countries refused admittance of clearance of the aircraft, which effectively denied the plane access to international airspace. This forced the plane to land in Austria and the diplomatic row ensued. In fact, Snowden was not on board the plane.
What the incident did was to expose the question ask, just days later, during a meeting of several South American leaders, who is in charge? Are the leaders of the several European countries in charge, or is the CIA in charge? Do those leaders control their airspace or is the CIA in charge? Admittedly these are inflammatory statements or question, yet there are ask in public by the Presidents of South American countries, in public and in front of accepting audiences. Are these actions enhancing our security in the world? This is directly from the report of the BBC on the subject; The Bolivian president blamed Washington for pressurizing European countries into refusing him passage, and threatened to close the US embassy in La Paz.
"We have dignity, sovereignty. Without America, we are better off politically and democratically," he said.
If this were an isolated incident, that would be bad but just recently another incident calls into question the ability of the US to bully its allies into actions they would otherwise not engage in. The incident occurred on 19 August 2013, at Heathrow airport. The partner of Guardian reporter Greenwald was returning to Brazil where he lives with Greenwald. His flight took him through Heathrow while en-route. He was not entering the UK except as an international traveler on an international flight on a routine stop over. He was taken to a small room where under the schedule 7 terrorism act of the UK he was questioned by 6 as yet unidentified agents for the maximum 9 hours allowed for detention. All of his electronic possessions were taken from him to be downloaded and all of his personal papers and belongings were searched, of course under the terrorism act.
It is as yet unclear whether the actions were taken solely on the basis of the UK government, or if they were prompted by the US government or a combination of both. The Brazilian ambassador to the UK has asked for explanations and assurances that Brazilian citizens would not face this in the future. The Brazilian government has not stated any actions as yet in regards to the US government.
However, my questions are the same as before, is our image enhanced, is our security enhanced and do we actually believe we can expect willing cooperation in any efforts we may wish to take in the future with these governments?
My position is the actions of our government has taken on the complexion of a paranoid, tyrannical, imperial entity treating its allies much the same as Rome treated the puppet governors of the client states within the Roman empire during the decline. Perpetual fear and perpetual bullying was the order of the day. Always concerned with the next plot against the emperor. Always concerned about how the actions of the empires representatives would be viewed in Rome. Till the day the invaders conquered Rome. Rome had withdrawn the legions into the heart of the empire during the last days. Some legions had been recalled simply because the constant harassment was not worth the financial cost to the failing empire; others were recalled in fear of eminent danger to the heart of Rome. When the true Barbarians were at the gates, the supposed allies either couldn't or wouldn't assist and the worst fears came to pass. The dark ages fell upon the world. Yes, parts of the former empire limped along for several centuries, but the might of the Roman Empire was gone.
If, we as a people, do not act to rein in this out of control government, America will be gone. This world is bully bent on obedience not only of its own citizens but the subjugation of their own allies, the same fate could and most likely will befall our empire. We, as a United States, under a constitutional government, have only existed a little more than two hundred years, well short of the time accomplished by other empires such as the Romans, or the Spanish empire, or even closer to our hearts and imagination, the venerable British Empire. Yet is it empire we seek?
I do not believe that is what was envisioned when the constitution set up a three part government of equal powers. I, personally, do not want the world to perceive, that under the direction of Obama, the CIA can demand the grounding of another democratically elected leader to have his plane searched as though he were a common smuggler. I do not want the world to even question whether an international traveler, who may be peripherally involved with a news story is taken to a small room stripped of his possessions and intimidated for nine hours.
It is my heartfelt belief it is time for patriots to act within the confines of the US Constitution, the very document designed just for the purpose of the will of the people to be followed to act now. The world watched while the French King and Queen were beheaded in front of cheering crowds. The world watched when Napoleon became Emperor. Yet the world marveled at the peaceful transition of power when President Washington was succeeded by the duly elected President Adams. From all I have recently read, from all I have spoken to, either plain spoken common man or highly educated well placed European citizens, they see things have changed. We, as patriotic countrymen, have a duty, charged upon us by those who have laid the foundations. They have given us different levers of powers. The have given us the ballot box, failing that they have given us the powers of impeachment, failing that they have given us the Article V convention option. Please let us not hesitate to act peacefully, within the confines of that which has been designed for purpose. Let us act when our chances of success are good. For if we don't the Barbarians may soon be at our gates. Will our allies look upon our time of need and aid us, or let us fall and say good riddance?
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius
clf/gd
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #11 Part 1
[3-PART SERIES]
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
THE EXTINCTION OF LIBERTY-OUR CONSTITUTION IS TO BE RE-WRITTEN.
This paper will be offered as purely research.
VITALLY IMPORTANT RESEARCH. THE CONSTITUTION IS TO BE RE-WRITTEN.
THERE ARE ACTIVE GROUPS-PERSONS-AND AN AGENDA THAT IS WORKING IN CONCERT AND WITH DEDICATION TO DO SO.
NEVER...IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE.
AS WE SPEAK....IS IN FACT,... THE TRUTH.
THEY MAY SUCEED IF WE CONTINUE TO DO NOTHING.
Our Research Begins:
The 2020 Constitution
Our site we seeks to find information and conversation pertinent to the current political views expressed in our society today, as they reflect the opinions and the standing of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Our project http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com and the proposed 28th Amendment-20 words-that call for repeal of the 14th-16th and 17th Amendments, our sole purpose is to restore the original intent of the Framers of Constitutional representative government- our Republic.
Our research came upon the following. Let me preface, we are well aware of the critics of the Article V process, and the fear tactics that they employ to seek to dissuade persons from investigation or knowledgeable pursuit of Article V. We call it simply the con/con theory.
I would offer this thought concerning those criticisms. If you love and respect the document, let it stand on its own truth and exercise its own power. Article V is the process left to us by the Founders to address the governmental crisis we face today. The con/con fear is that the document would/could face danger to its entirety. Read the following and then tell us that that danger is already being realized, by our doing nothing. Look at the intention of the persons of 'progressive' theology and their plans for the document in the future.
[AH-OOO...THERE IS THAT WORD 'progressive'..when you see it-EVERY-TIME you see it....WATCH OUT!!]
Article
Why Political Progressives Need to Think About the Entire Constitution
By Sanford Levinson.
W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas Law School, and Professor of Government at the University of Texas at Austin.
I am immensely grateful to be invited to discuss my new book, Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance, to the readers of ACS blog.
I have crafted these comments in a way that highlights what may be an important difference between my take on the Constitution and that of many of my friends in the ACS. Although many, perhaps most of us, share the perception that the contemporary United States is increasingly caught in a “crisis of governance,” attention tends to be addressed at the defects of particular leaders, including, of course, the present majority of the United States Supreme Court.
There is much with which I agree in the vision of The Constitution in 2020 set out in the book co-edited by my friends and casebook co-editors Jack Balkin and Reva Siegel.
However, I believe that we cannot begin to diagnose the causes of our crisis by focusing only on what I call the Constitution of Conversation. It can also be described as the litigated Constitution, and it is litigated precisely because
clever lawyers are highly skilled in demonstrating that the indeterminate language of, say, the Commerce or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, can be used to support a constitutional vision congruent with the collective goals of the lawyers’ clients or perhaps the lawyers themselves (if they are “cause lawyers”).
In any event, these conversations are known to all of us, and we see them being spelled out particularly passionately with regard to the Affordable Care Act.
But the most important political realities of the Affordable Care Act are first that it took literally more than a half century to pass after initial proposals by Harry Truman and, secondly, that it is a defective bill in many respects with regard genuinely to getting a handle on the costs of a modern medical system.
To explain these realities requires no conversation about the “meaning” of the Constitution. Rather, it requires addressing too-often-ignored “civics class” features of the United States Constitution. How does a bill become a law (or, more practically, why do most legislative proposals have only a snowballs chance in hell of being passed)?
The answer lies in the almost insurmountable hurdles set up by the particular American system of bicameralism and the opportunity of presidents to veto any legislation they do not like on policy grounds, with the near impossibility of overrides.
I will rejoice when the Supreme Court upholds the Affordable Care Act, as I still think is likely. But it should also be recognized that what the Court will be doing, at best, is saying that a mediocre, albeit necessary, piece of legislation is constitutional if it can run the minefield against progressive legislation established in 1787 and left remarkably unchanged since then.
That is the importance of looking at the basic “framing” of the Constitution and the assumptions underlying it. It was designed by people who were basically mistrustful of popular democracy and, more particularly, redistributive legislation. They succeeded quite well in creating a political system that stifles both.
Moreover, the book looks at the constitutions of the 50 states, almost all of which differ in extremely interesting ways from the national constitution. All but Delaware’s, for example, include at least some element of direct democracy, whereas the national Constitution is committed exclusively to representative democracy.
All of the state constitutions include some elements of “positive rights,” the most important example being education. Each and every state constitution is easier to amend than the national constitution. Fourteen state constitutions allow the electorate at regular intervals to vote whether to have a new state constitutional convention.
Each and every state follows the rule of “one-person/one vote” established by the Supreme Court in 1964 instead of tolerating the sheer absurdity of an institution like the national Senate and its grant of equal representation to Wyoming and California, Vermont and Texas.
Most state judges in the United States are elected—and have limited tenure in office—as distinguished from the national practice of appointed judges (with Senate confirmation) and tenure until death.
A century ago, political progressives were well aware of the deficiencies of the national Constitution and put great effort into such amendments as the 16th, 17th, and 19thamendments.
Today, that kind of “constitutional imagination,” which requires that one attend to the seemingly dull and boring “structural Constitution”— what I call the Constitution of Settlement — is almost completely absent as we devote almost literally all of our time and attention to the Constitution of Conversation.
My deepest hope is that members of the ACS will realized that serious discussion of The Constitution in 2020 should include how it might be necessary to transform basic constitutional structures if we are ever going to achieve the progressive changes in national policy that most of us support.
End Article.
Footnote:
In his widely acclaimed volume Our Undemocratic Constitution, Sanford Levinson boldly argued that our Constitution should not be treated with "sanctimonious reverence," but as a badly flawed document deserving revision. Now Levinson takes us deeper, asking what were the original assumptions underlying our institutions, and whether we accept those assumptions 225 years later.
Overview of Framed.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/framed-sanford-levinson/1110771922?ean=9780199890750&isbn=9780199890750
In Framed, Levinson challenges our belief that the most important features of our constitutions concern what rights they protect. Instead, he focuses on the fundamental procedures of governance such as congressional bicameralism; the selection of the President by the electoral college, or the dimensions of the President's veto power—not to mention the near impossibility of amending the United States Constitution. These seemingly "settled" and "hardwired" structures contribute to the now almost universally recognized "dysfunctionality" of American politics.
Levinson argues that we should stop treating the United States Constitution as uniquely exemplifying the American constitutional tradition. We should be aware of the 50 state constitutions, often interestingly different—and perhaps better—than the national model. Many states have updated their constitutions by frequent amendment or by complete replacement via state constitutional conventions. California's ungovernable condition has prompted serious calls for a constitutional convention. This constant churn indicates that basic law often reaches the point where it fails and becomes obsolete. Given the experience of so many states, he writes, surely it is reasonable to believe that the U.S. Constitution merits its own updating.
Whether we are concerned about making America more genuinely democratic or only about creating a system of government that can more effectively respond to contemporary challenges, we must confront the ways our constitutions, especially the United States Constitution, must be changed in fundamental ways.
My Conclusion of Part 1
Yes, they have announced boldly their intention to destroy our Constitutional Republic. Arguably, already - the legislature does as it pleases, the executive does as he pleases and the Courts take away individual and States rights - so in effect the entire Constitution is being undone - the key to its destruction is the 14th amendment, support by the 16th and 17th.
With all of their proposed intentions of a 'new' Constitutions in play...once they have 2020 version...the original will no longer exist...the naysayers need to wake up and smell the coffee...doing nothing will re-write the original more surely than any fear of a 'constitutional convention' (WHICH WE DO NOT PROPOSE) of any imagination would be able to do! A dear friend to our project has said to us ....not to decide...is to decide. Friends we can no longer afford the time we spend to debate or not to act. Not to act will surely mean the Constitution as we know and love it will die. The enemies of the document have surely chosen to decide that, they speak openly, publically, and proudly of their intention.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
clf/lb
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
THE EXTINCTION OF LIBERTY-OUR CONSTITUTION IS TO BE RE-WRITTEN.
This paper will be offered as purely research.
VITALLY IMPORTANT RESEARCH. THE CONSTITUTION IS TO BE RE-WRITTEN.
THERE ARE ACTIVE GROUPS-PERSONS-AND AN AGENDA THAT IS WORKING IN CONCERT AND WITH DEDICATION TO DO SO.
NEVER...IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE.
AS WE SPEAK....IS IN FACT,... THE TRUTH.
THEY MAY SUCEED IF WE CONTINUE TO DO NOTHING.
Our Research Begins:
The 2020 Constitution
Our site we seeks to find information and conversation pertinent to the current political views expressed in our society today, as they reflect the opinions and the standing of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Our project http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com and the proposed 28th Amendment-20 words-that call for repeal of the 14th-16th and 17th Amendments, our sole purpose is to restore the original intent of the Framers of Constitutional representative government- our Republic.
Our research came upon the following. Let me preface, we are well aware of the critics of the Article V process, and the fear tactics that they employ to seek to dissuade persons from investigation or knowledgeable pursuit of Article V. We call it simply the con/con theory.
I would offer this thought concerning those criticisms. If you love and respect the document, let it stand on its own truth and exercise its own power. Article V is the process left to us by the Founders to address the governmental crisis we face today. The con/con fear is that the document would/could face danger to its entirety. Read the following and then tell us that that danger is already being realized, by our doing nothing. Look at the intention of the persons of 'progressive' theology and their plans for the document in the future.
[AH-OOO...THERE IS THAT WORD 'progressive'..when you see it-EVERY-TIME you see it....WATCH OUT!!]
Article
Why Political Progressives Need to Think About the Entire Constitution
By Sanford Levinson.
W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas Law School, and Professor of Government at the University of Texas at Austin.
I am immensely grateful to be invited to discuss my new book, Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance, to the readers of ACS blog.
I have crafted these comments in a way that highlights what may be an important difference between my take on the Constitution and that of many of my friends in the ACS. Although many, perhaps most of us, share the perception that the contemporary United States is increasingly caught in a “crisis of governance,” attention tends to be addressed at the defects of particular leaders, including, of course, the present majority of the United States Supreme Court.
There is much with which I agree in the vision of The Constitution in 2020 set out in the book co-edited by my friends and casebook co-editors Jack Balkin and Reva Siegel.
However, I believe that we cannot begin to diagnose the causes of our crisis by focusing only on what I call the Constitution of Conversation. It can also be described as the litigated Constitution, and it is litigated precisely because
clever lawyers are highly skilled in demonstrating that the indeterminate language of, say, the Commerce or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, can be used to support a constitutional vision congruent with the collective goals of the lawyers’ clients or perhaps the lawyers themselves (if they are “cause lawyers”).
In any event, these conversations are known to all of us, and we see them being spelled out particularly passionately with regard to the Affordable Care Act.
But the most important political realities of the Affordable Care Act are first that it took literally more than a half century to pass after initial proposals by Harry Truman and, secondly, that it is a defective bill in many respects with regard genuinely to getting a handle on the costs of a modern medical system.
To explain these realities requires no conversation about the “meaning” of the Constitution. Rather, it requires addressing too-often-ignored “civics class” features of the United States Constitution. How does a bill become a law (or, more practically, why do most legislative proposals have only a snowballs chance in hell of being passed)?
The answer lies in the almost insurmountable hurdles set up by the particular American system of bicameralism and the opportunity of presidents to veto any legislation they do not like on policy grounds, with the near impossibility of overrides.
I will rejoice when the Supreme Court upholds the Affordable Care Act, as I still think is likely. But it should also be recognized that what the Court will be doing, at best, is saying that a mediocre, albeit necessary, piece of legislation is constitutional if it can run the minefield against progressive legislation established in 1787 and left remarkably unchanged since then.
That is the importance of looking at the basic “framing” of the Constitution and the assumptions underlying it. It was designed by people who were basically mistrustful of popular democracy and, more particularly, redistributive legislation. They succeeded quite well in creating a political system that stifles both.
Moreover, the book looks at the constitutions of the 50 states, almost all of which differ in extremely interesting ways from the national constitution. All but Delaware’s, for example, include at least some element of direct democracy, whereas the national Constitution is committed exclusively to representative democracy.
All of the state constitutions include some elements of “positive rights,” the most important example being education. Each and every state constitution is easier to amend than the national constitution. Fourteen state constitutions allow the electorate at regular intervals to vote whether to have a new state constitutional convention.
Each and every state follows the rule of “one-person/one vote” established by the Supreme Court in 1964 instead of tolerating the sheer absurdity of an institution like the national Senate and its grant of equal representation to Wyoming and California, Vermont and Texas.
Most state judges in the United States are elected—and have limited tenure in office—as distinguished from the national practice of appointed judges (with Senate confirmation) and tenure until death.
A century ago, political progressives were well aware of the deficiencies of the national Constitution and put great effort into such amendments as the 16th, 17th, and 19thamendments.
Today, that kind of “constitutional imagination,” which requires that one attend to the seemingly dull and boring “structural Constitution”— what I call the Constitution of Settlement — is almost completely absent as we devote almost literally all of our time and attention to the Constitution of Conversation.
My deepest hope is that members of the ACS will realized that serious discussion of The Constitution in 2020 should include how it might be necessary to transform basic constitutional structures if we are ever going to achieve the progressive changes in national policy that most of us support.
End Article.
Footnote:
In his widely acclaimed volume Our Undemocratic Constitution, Sanford Levinson boldly argued that our Constitution should not be treated with "sanctimonious reverence," but as a badly flawed document deserving revision. Now Levinson takes us deeper, asking what were the original assumptions underlying our institutions, and whether we accept those assumptions 225 years later.
Overview of Framed.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/framed-sanford-levinson/1110771922?ean=9780199890750&isbn=9780199890750
In Framed, Levinson challenges our belief that the most important features of our constitutions concern what rights they protect. Instead, he focuses on the fundamental procedures of governance such as congressional bicameralism; the selection of the President by the electoral college, or the dimensions of the President's veto power—not to mention the near impossibility of amending the United States Constitution. These seemingly "settled" and "hardwired" structures contribute to the now almost universally recognized "dysfunctionality" of American politics.
Levinson argues that we should stop treating the United States Constitution as uniquely exemplifying the American constitutional tradition. We should be aware of the 50 state constitutions, often interestingly different—and perhaps better—than the national model. Many states have updated their constitutions by frequent amendment or by complete replacement via state constitutional conventions. California's ungovernable condition has prompted serious calls for a constitutional convention. This constant churn indicates that basic law often reaches the point where it fails and becomes obsolete. Given the experience of so many states, he writes, surely it is reasonable to believe that the U.S. Constitution merits its own updating.
Whether we are concerned about making America more genuinely democratic or only about creating a system of government that can more effectively respond to contemporary challenges, we must confront the ways our constitutions, especially the United States Constitution, must be changed in fundamental ways.
My Conclusion of Part 1
Yes, they have announced boldly their intention to destroy our Constitutional Republic. Arguably, already - the legislature does as it pleases, the executive does as he pleases and the Courts take away individual and States rights - so in effect the entire Constitution is being undone - the key to its destruction is the 14th amendment, support by the 16th and 17th.
With all of their proposed intentions of a 'new' Constitutions in play...once they have 2020 version...the original will no longer exist...the naysayers need to wake up and smell the coffee...doing nothing will re-write the original more surely than any fear of a 'constitutional convention' (WHICH WE DO NOT PROPOSE) of any imagination would be able to do! A dear friend to our project has said to us ....not to decide...is to decide. Friends we can no longer afford the time we spend to debate or not to act. Not to act will surely mean the Constitution as we know and love it will die. The enemies of the document have surely chosen to decide that, they speak openly, publically, and proudly of their intention.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
clf/lb
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #11 - PART 2
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
THE 2020 CONSTITUTION
http://www.constitution2020.org/
Description
The Constitution in 2020, published by Oxford University Press, is a powerful blueprint for implementing a more progressive vision of constitutional law in the years ahead. Edited by two of America's leading constitutional scholars, Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, the book provides a new framework for addressing the most important constitutional issues of the future in clear, accessible language. Featuring some of America's finest legal minds--Cass Sunstein, Bruce Ackerman, Robert Post, Harold Koh, Larry Kramer, Noah Feldman, Pam Karlan, William Eskridge, Mark Tushnet, Yochai Benkler and Richard Ford, among others--the book tackles a wide range of issues, including the challenge of new technologies, presidential power, international human rights, religious liberty, freedom of speech, voting, reproductive rights, and economic rights. The Constitution in 2020 calls on liberals to articulate their constitutional vision in a way that can command the confidence of ordinary Americans.
Reviews
"For a generation, conservatives have dominated our constitutional conversation. Now as a new day dawns, this inspiring book recaptures a progressive vision of a Constitution that can fulfill the country's oldest commitments to a robust and inclusive democracy."--Linda Greenhouse, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author of Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey
"For much too long, progressive thinkers have been either responding reflexively to agendas set by the right, or wringing their hands over the absence of constructive options of their own. This volume marks the end of that time in the wilderness. Constitutional progressives who read this book's veritable cornucopia of carefully conceived alternatives are bound to be energized by the vistas opened here - and challenged by the puzzles posed in every sparkling chapter."-Laurence Tribe, author of The Invisible Constitution
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: The Constitution in 2020
Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School, and Reva B. Siegel, Yale Law School
I. Interpreting Our Constitution
2. Fidelity to Text and Principle
Jack M. Balkin
3. Democratic Constitutionalism
Robert C. Post, Yale Law School and Reva B. Siegel
II. Social Rights and Legislative Constitutionalism
4. The Minimalist Constitution
Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law School and nominee for Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
5. Economic Power and the Constitution
Frank Michelman, Harvard Law School
6. Social and Economic Rights in the American Grain: Reclaiming Constitutional Political Economy
William E. Forbath, University of Texas
7. State Action in 2020
Mark Tushnet, Harvard Law School
8. The Missing Jurisprudence of the Legislated Constitution
Robin West, Georgetown University Law Center
9. Remembering How to Do Equality
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel
III. Citizenship and Community
10. The Citizenship Agenda
Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School
11. National Citizenship and the Promise of Equal Educational Opportunity
Goodwin Liu, University of California at Berkeley
12. Terms of Belonging
Rachel F. Moran, University of California (Irvine and Berkeley), and President, Association of American Law Schools
13. Hopeless Constitutionalism, Hopeful Pragmatism
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
IV. Democracy and Civil Liberties
14. Voting Rights and the Third Reconstruction
Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School
15. Political Organization and the Future of Democracy
Larry Kramer, Dean, Stanford Law School
16. A Progressive Perspective on Freedom of Speech
Robert C. Post
17. Information, Structures, and the Constitution of American Society
Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School
18. The Constitution in the National Surveillance State
Jack M. Balkin
19. The Progressive Past
Tracey L. Meares, Yale Law School
V. Protecting Religious Diversity
20. The Framers' Church-State Problem—and Ours
Noah Feldman, Harvard Law School
21. Progressives, the Religion Clauses, and the Limits of Secularism
William P. Marshall, University of North Carolina
VI. Families and Values
22. A Liberal Vision of U.S. Family Law in 2020
William N. Eskridge, Jr., Yale Law School
23. A Progressive Reproductive Rights Agenda for 2020
Dawn E. Johnsen, Indiana University at Bloomington and nominee, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel
VII. State, Nation, World
24. What's Federalism For?
Judith Resnik, Yale Law School
25. Progressive Constitutionalism and Transnational Legal Discourse
Vicki C. Jackson, Georgetown University Law Center
26. "Strategies of the Weak": Thinking Globally and Acting Locally toward a
Progressive Constitutional Vision
David Cole, David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center
27. America and the World, 2020
Harold Hongju Koh, Dean, Yale Law School and nominee, Legal Adviser, State Department.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
clf/lb
THE 2020 CONSTITUTION
http://www.constitution2020.org/
Description
The Constitution in 2020, published by Oxford University Press, is a powerful blueprint for implementing a more progressive vision of constitutional law in the years ahead. Edited by two of America's leading constitutional scholars, Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, the book provides a new framework for addressing the most important constitutional issues of the future in clear, accessible language. Featuring some of America's finest legal minds--Cass Sunstein, Bruce Ackerman, Robert Post, Harold Koh, Larry Kramer, Noah Feldman, Pam Karlan, William Eskridge, Mark Tushnet, Yochai Benkler and Richard Ford, among others--the book tackles a wide range of issues, including the challenge of new technologies, presidential power, international human rights, religious liberty, freedom of speech, voting, reproductive rights, and economic rights. The Constitution in 2020 calls on liberals to articulate their constitutional vision in a way that can command the confidence of ordinary Americans.
Reviews
"For a generation, conservatives have dominated our constitutional conversation. Now as a new day dawns, this inspiring book recaptures a progressive vision of a Constitution that can fulfill the country's oldest commitments to a robust and inclusive democracy."--Linda Greenhouse, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author of Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey
"For much too long, progressive thinkers have been either responding reflexively to agendas set by the right, or wringing their hands over the absence of constructive options of their own. This volume marks the end of that time in the wilderness. Constitutional progressives who read this book's veritable cornucopia of carefully conceived alternatives are bound to be energized by the vistas opened here - and challenged by the puzzles posed in every sparkling chapter."-Laurence Tribe, author of The Invisible Constitution
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: The Constitution in 2020
Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School, and Reva B. Siegel, Yale Law School
I. Interpreting Our Constitution
2. Fidelity to Text and Principle
Jack M. Balkin
3. Democratic Constitutionalism
Robert C. Post, Yale Law School and Reva B. Siegel
II. Social Rights and Legislative Constitutionalism
4. The Minimalist Constitution
Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law School and nominee for Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
5. Economic Power and the Constitution
Frank Michelman, Harvard Law School
6. Social and Economic Rights in the American Grain: Reclaiming Constitutional Political Economy
William E. Forbath, University of Texas
7. State Action in 2020
Mark Tushnet, Harvard Law School
8. The Missing Jurisprudence of the Legislated Constitution
Robin West, Georgetown University Law Center
9. Remembering How to Do Equality
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel
III. Citizenship and Community
10. The Citizenship Agenda
Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School
11. National Citizenship and the Promise of Equal Educational Opportunity
Goodwin Liu, University of California at Berkeley
12. Terms of Belonging
Rachel F. Moran, University of California (Irvine and Berkeley), and President, Association of American Law Schools
13. Hopeless Constitutionalism, Hopeful Pragmatism
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
IV. Democracy and Civil Liberties
14. Voting Rights and the Third Reconstruction
Pamela S. Karlan, Stanford Law School
15. Political Organization and the Future of Democracy
Larry Kramer, Dean, Stanford Law School
16. A Progressive Perspective on Freedom of Speech
Robert C. Post
17. Information, Structures, and the Constitution of American Society
Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School
18. The Constitution in the National Surveillance State
Jack M. Balkin
19. The Progressive Past
Tracey L. Meares, Yale Law School
V. Protecting Religious Diversity
20. The Framers' Church-State Problem—and Ours
Noah Feldman, Harvard Law School
21. Progressives, the Religion Clauses, and the Limits of Secularism
William P. Marshall, University of North Carolina
VI. Families and Values
22. A Liberal Vision of U.S. Family Law in 2020
William N. Eskridge, Jr., Yale Law School
23. A Progressive Reproductive Rights Agenda for 2020
Dawn E. Johnsen, Indiana University at Bloomington and nominee, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel
VII. State, Nation, World
24. What's Federalism For?
Judith Resnik, Yale Law School
25. Progressive Constitutionalism and Transnational Legal Discourse
Vicki C. Jackson, Georgetown University Law Center
26. "Strategies of the Weak": Thinking Globally and Acting Locally toward a
Progressive Constitutional Vision
David Cole, David Cole, Georgetown University Law Center
27. America and the World, 2020
Harold Hongju Koh, Dean, Yale Law School and nominee, Legal Adviser, State Department.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
clf/lb
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS PART 3
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
The 2020 Constitution Site
Companion website to the same named book.
http://www.constitution2020.org/sample_chapters
Sample Chapters
Democratic Constitutionalism
Robert C. Post and Reva B. Siegel
The Missing Jurisprudence of the Legislated Constitutionalism
Robin West
Remembering How to Do Equality
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel
The Citizenship Agenda
Bruce Ackerman
Hopeless Constitutionalism, Hopeful Pragmatism
Richard T. Ford
Voting Rights and the Third Reconstruction
Pamela S. Karlan
Political Organizations and the Future of Democracy
Larry Kramer
A Progressive Reproductive Rights Agenda for 2020
Dawn E. Johnsen
What's Federalism For?
Judith Resnik
"Strategies of the Weak": Thinking Globally and Acting Locally toward a Progressive Constitutional Vision
David Cole
"WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY...AND HE IS....US' ~ Pogo.
These groups, these people, are citizens of our Country, working to destroy The Constitution of the United States of America. You are a citizen as well...what do you intend to do about it? 'Nothing' is not what they are doing toward the end they wish to achieve...doing 'NOTHING' is not an option we can choose either-if we want to keep our Country and Restore and Defend our Constitution as it was founded. The time for action has come.
I call this 2020 Constitution treasonous and those with this intention traitors to my Country.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius clf/lb
The 2020 Constitution Site
Companion website to the same named book.
http://www.constitution2020.org/sample_chapters
Sample Chapters
Democratic Constitutionalism
Robert C. Post and Reva B. Siegel
The Missing Jurisprudence of the Legislated Constitutionalism
Robin West
Remembering How to Do Equality
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel
The Citizenship Agenda
Bruce Ackerman
Hopeless Constitutionalism, Hopeful Pragmatism
Richard T. Ford
Voting Rights and the Third Reconstruction
Pamela S. Karlan
Political Organizations and the Future of Democracy
Larry Kramer
A Progressive Reproductive Rights Agenda for 2020
Dawn E. Johnsen
What's Federalism For?
Judith Resnik
"Strategies of the Weak": Thinking Globally and Acting Locally toward a Progressive Constitutional Vision
David Cole
"WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY...AND HE IS....US' ~ Pogo.
These groups, these people, are citizens of our Country, working to destroy The Constitution of the United States of America. You are a citizen as well...what do you intend to do about it? 'Nothing' is not what they are doing toward the end they wish to achieve...doing 'NOTHING' is not an option we can choose either-if we want to keep our Country and Restore and Defend our Constitution as it was founded. The time for action has come.
I call this 2020 Constitution treasonous and those with this intention traitors to my Country.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius clf/lb
The New Federalist Papers #12 Part 1
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
DEMIGODS AND MARBURY vs. MADISON
USURPATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE SUPREME COURT
When a man acts as God he can only be a demigod, such is the case of John Marshall, and here is his story.
One of the things the First Congressional Session did was pass the Judiciary Act of 1789. This act, signed by President Washington outlined Article III, the third Branch of government; the Judicial Branch.
Article 1, sec 8: "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;...."
Article III, sec 1: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
The Act formed two Federal Courts below the U.S. Supreme Court and formed 13 Federal Districts, expanded Circuit Courts from 3 to 6 adding Judges in each district. These District Courts could hear minor criminal cases, cases involving the Admiralty, Maritime Law and civil cases. This Act also created 3 Federal Circuit Courts which could hear three types of cases; U.S. as Plaintiff or were at least one of the parties is an alien to the U.S., and the case is between parties of different states or diversity cases if the amount is over $500.00. Each Circuit Court comprises a Federal Judge, District Court Judge and 2 Supreme Court Justices.
The Judiciary Act also identified the precise Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
*Could hear appeals from Federal or District Courts.
*Appeals from State Courts involving Federal Treaties or Statutes, but only if decision of State Court if it was against Federal Interests.
* Controversies between two States, between State and Citizens of other States.
* Against Ambassadors, public ministers and consuls or their domestics. (Consuls and vice-consuls were government officers living in foreign countries and responsible to promote American business in that country).
What this Act DID NOT do was grant Federal Courts broad authority to hear cases that arose under the Constitution of Federal Law nor the authority of judicial review of Congressional Legislation. However, it should be noted that there was no Federal Laws at this time. The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a functionary responsibility of Congress according to the Constitutional guidelines of forming a Supreme Court and inferior courts, nothing more.
This Act of Congress will seemingly be the stepping stone of all future Activist Judges and their interpretation of Constitutional intent and Constitutional Law. Here is how it begins.
In the election of 1801, Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist President John Adams. The election was February 17, 1801 but Jefferson would not be sworn as President until March 4, 1801. Until that time, President Adams still controlled the Federalist Congress and passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This expanded the Federal Courts and added judges to each Circuit and District Court, allowing Adams to appoint those Judges which included 16 Circuit Judges and 42 Federal Justices of the Peace, which included a man named Marbury, who like Adams was a staunch Federalist. The appointees were lump sum approved by Congress on the eve of March 3, 1801. The responsibility to deliver the commissions fell upon a guy by the name of John Marshall, who himself had just been confirmed as the new Chief Justice of the United States, and had been a House member from the State of Virginia. Marshall was also acting Secretary of State at the request of President Adams. Marshall delivered all the commissions except a few, which included William Marbury, and expected the incumbent Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the rest. It did not work the way Marshall expected though..or did it?
The next day, President Thomas Jefferson told his Attorney General Levi Lincoln not to deliver the remaining commissions, and reasoned that since they had not been delivered on time, the commissions were null and void. The new Secretary of State James Madison had not arrived to assume his office when this decision was made by Jefferson.
William Marbury directly petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus (a court order that requires an official to do his duty) and compel Madison to deliver his commission.
I'm going to stop here for a moment and explain what is called "chain of evidence" to you all.
When a criminal investigator arrives at a crime scene the only thing he/she are looking for is proof that a crime has been committed, this is called evidence and can be anything material, such as fingerprints, broken glass, blood splatters or phone records. This evidence must be carefully logged, time stamped, address of crime, case number and officers name who gathered it and location within the crime scene. If photos are taken those are also evidence and must be logged into the case file. If, on the challenge of the defendant any one of above listed procedures are not followed the whole package of material evidence is not allowed to be heard in the court proceedings. Evidence must be meticulously cared for or the case goes no where. This very concept is also applied to procedural or potential application of making Laws or judicial review. Judicial review is simply reviewing civil or criminal cases by a superior court judge(s) that make sure all the legal applications were applied, from start to finish and the proper verdict was rendered. So again if any errors are done in the process the case is tossed.
So Marbury petitions the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Marshall (yep that John Marshall) and 3 Associate Judges hear the case. In the meantime Congress passes the Judiciary Act of 1802 which effectively repeals the Judiciary Act of 1801 (which by the way the 1801 Act has a clause allowing the U.S. Supreme Court judicial review but neither of the other two Acts have that clause). The judicial review process had been around for ages and ages. The process had even been discussed at the Philadelphia Convention and rejected as an authority for the Supreme Court. Hamilton in Federalist 78-83 thoroughly discusses the Article III authority of the Supreme Court.
"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of the power must perceive that in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of strength or the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgment." Hamilton, Federalist 78.
The most quoted and what activist judges base their authority on also comes from Federalist 78:
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It is therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two that which has the superior obligation and validity ought of course be preferred; or in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
However, the next paragraph says this: “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the ill of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
Hamilton continues in his essays to admonish the judges to base any decisions on Constitutional Law and they are the intermediates between the people and the legislatures. That judges are not to judge on their personal will or political position but always on the side of the people. Judgment is not opinion based on personal views or biases but based on Constitutional intent and purpose only.
No matter what Hamilton says (Hamilton was a famous Federalist) the Founder, Framers and especially the Ratifiers did not mention "judicial review" in Article III as part of the Supreme Courts powers..If they would have wanted it there it would have been written into the article.
Back to Marbury v Madison:
In 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall handed down a unanimous opinion and here is his ruling in short order;
* Marbury had legal right to commission
* It was a "plain" violation for Madison to withhold the commission.
* Writ of Mandamus was proper remedy.
*Congressional legislation contrary to the Federal Constitution is null and void and cannot be enforced by a court of law.
* That the U.S. Supreme Court was sole interpreter of Constitutional Law.
Five seemingly innocent opinions. The first three are considered proper law, but the last two changed the Supreme Court Standing with the other two branches of government. It not only made them equal but expanded Article III to include authority over those two branches. Let us go through the "evidential process" to see if the opinion meets the standards of "judicial review".
*One of the requirements of the Supreme Court to hear a petition directly filed by a citizen is for that person to be an Ambassador or Consul. Marbury was a wealthy business owner, the appointment was for a Federal Justice of the Peace, and he was a staunch Federalist. He was not an Ambassador.
*John Marshall was an appointed Chief Justice and Acting Secretary of State when commissions were to be delivered. It should also be noted that President Adams appointed Marshall from the House of Representatives in the "lame duck" period from February 1801 to March 1801, when Jefferson would be the newly elected President. This is also the period when the Judiciary Act of 1801 was passed allowing for the Supreme Court judicial review as well as the expansion of the Federal Courts, Judges and Federal Districts. John Marshall was a noted and famous Federalist and believed that the Supreme Court should be equal to the two other branches of government and the court had judicial review over Congress and President. A case he argued in the ratification meeting in his home State of Virginia...he lost the argument and the ratification of the Articles passed as they stood.
*Did John Marshall recuse himself? NO, in fact he deemed it as unimportant as to his personal view was. His opinion says otherwise.
*Even though Hamilton, another staunch Federalist, indicates in his Federalist (not to be confused with the political party) that the Supreme Court would have the authority of judicial review it is an opinion based on his own Federalist political beliefs and not the intentions of the Framers and Ratifiers.
*Marbury had no standing with the Supreme Court to petition for a writ of mandamus. He did have standing in a lesser Federal court to file his petition.
*Since Marbury had no standing for his petition except in a lesser court, then the Supreme Court had no authority or standing to accept the petition.
Chief Justice Marshall made his decision on the Judiciary Act of 1801 which had the clause that the Supreme Court had the authority of judicial review of Congressional Laws when this Act had been repealed in 1802.
*The fact remains that under Article III the Ratifiers gave no authority for judicial review nor granted Congress the authority to even grant such review. This would mean that the Judiciary Act of 1801 in and of itself is Unconstitutional when it authorized judicial review by the Supreme Court.
*When the Supreme Court Justices reached to the Judiciary Act of 1789, they over extenuated their authority to opinionate on a non-existent Act that had nothing to do with Unconstitutional Laws.
*The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a Constitutional mandate to set the guidelines for the Judicial Branch of government; Article 1, sec 8 and Article III, sec 1 gives Congress that authority.
*The Judiciary Act of 1879 was never a Constitutional issue. Marshall made it one.
With the above I have stated 11 evidential facts that Marbury v Madison is outside the Supreme Courts authority to opinionate on. In the old days we'd say "bag it and tag it, this one is a winner". Meaning we had enough evidence to convict, and John Marshall and associates have no Constitutional evidence to substantiate their opinion. None, zero, zilch, nada....
Legal scholars, Judges and lawyers of today and the years following John Marshall’s death believe that he made the "right" and prudent decision according to Constitutional restrictions. These people are called "activist" and also believe that the Constitution is a living document and can be changed by time and belief fitting the issues of the day without Congressional or public approval. These Judges especially believe that they are the only ones that have the authority to determine what our rights are. These Judges after John Marshall’s opinion base many of their opinions on case laws that are not based on Constitutional Law. The reason for that is John Marshall opened the door for Mans Law to override Constitutional Law. The flip side of this is that the U.S. Court of Appeals can now and has for a very long time made law, instead of "judge" the laws. They have maneuvered themselves into the position of sole and absolute and final arbitrators of what rights you have, even though they are inalienable, the Justices are self-empowered to determine what those are and who has them, and can take them away at any time.
Thomas Jefferson after Marbury v Madison opinion.
.."A mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they choose."
Constitutional Scholar Leonard W. Levy on Marbury v Madison;
"(In) no other cases in our Constitutional history has the court held unconstitutional an act of Congress whose Constitutionality was not an issue."
One more interesting note about Chief Justice John Marshall; in over 500 opinions handed down by him, this is the only one that declared an act of Congress as Unconstitutional.
dEmIGODS have come to rule the land.
Today, right now, at this moment the U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of making Law that will affect your very personal lives. Or they are making Unconstitutional law, such as ObamaCare, that will affect your personal lives. When, since Chief Justice John Marshall has the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Congressional Law....hint there was no Congressional Law until around 1875. Another question, why did the U.S. Supreme Court sits by and allows President Lincoln to impose Habeas Corpus in 1861? And why did they sit by and allow Congress to strip President Johnson of his Constitutional Authority as Commander-in-Chief in the Reconstruction era? And why did the U.S. Supreme Court sit by and allow the Congress to force the rebel states to ratify the 14th amendment before re-admittance to Statehood?
Believe it or not, these inactions as well as the actions have directly affected you to this very day. The answer is very simple. These people that sit on the highest bench in the judicial system are nationalist who believe in a large and intrusive government. They are not Constitutionalist. Their many decisions are based on Mans Law, a process that is not productive and does not empower the people nor maintain or defend those inalienable rights. We are so entangled in the legal process of Mans Law that the Supreme Court has selectively and in many cases contradictively confused the Constitutional issues. Even Hamilton says that the final decision in the process of governance and the judicial process is solely the peoples’ rights and no others.
That process is done through the amendment process as stated in Article V. When Congress gets out of line, the people change it through Article V. With the collective agreement of 38 States in the ratification of one single amendment the abuse and over extended authoritarian Supreme Court can be brought back into Constitutional restraints.
God, the Supreme Judge of us all, have mercy on these poor fools that rule and are ruled by man’s imperfections. And I, your faithful servant will be locked and loaded until such time as Your Laws once again cover this Nation.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/db 'The Lawman'
DEMIGODS AND MARBURY vs. MADISON
USURPATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE SUPREME COURT
When a man acts as God he can only be a demigod, such is the case of John Marshall, and here is his story.
One of the things the First Congressional Session did was pass the Judiciary Act of 1789. This act, signed by President Washington outlined Article III, the third Branch of government; the Judicial Branch.
Article 1, sec 8: "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;...."
Article III, sec 1: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
The Act formed two Federal Courts below the U.S. Supreme Court and formed 13 Federal Districts, expanded Circuit Courts from 3 to 6 adding Judges in each district. These District Courts could hear minor criminal cases, cases involving the Admiralty, Maritime Law and civil cases. This Act also created 3 Federal Circuit Courts which could hear three types of cases; U.S. as Plaintiff or were at least one of the parties is an alien to the U.S., and the case is between parties of different states or diversity cases if the amount is over $500.00. Each Circuit Court comprises a Federal Judge, District Court Judge and 2 Supreme Court Justices.
The Judiciary Act also identified the precise Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
*Could hear appeals from Federal or District Courts.
*Appeals from State Courts involving Federal Treaties or Statutes, but only if decision of State Court if it was against Federal Interests.
* Controversies between two States, between State and Citizens of other States.
* Against Ambassadors, public ministers and consuls or their domestics. (Consuls and vice-consuls were government officers living in foreign countries and responsible to promote American business in that country).
What this Act DID NOT do was grant Federal Courts broad authority to hear cases that arose under the Constitution of Federal Law nor the authority of judicial review of Congressional Legislation. However, it should be noted that there was no Federal Laws at this time. The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a functionary responsibility of Congress according to the Constitutional guidelines of forming a Supreme Court and inferior courts, nothing more.
This Act of Congress will seemingly be the stepping stone of all future Activist Judges and their interpretation of Constitutional intent and Constitutional Law. Here is how it begins.
In the election of 1801, Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist President John Adams. The election was February 17, 1801 but Jefferson would not be sworn as President until March 4, 1801. Until that time, President Adams still controlled the Federalist Congress and passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This expanded the Federal Courts and added judges to each Circuit and District Court, allowing Adams to appoint those Judges which included 16 Circuit Judges and 42 Federal Justices of the Peace, which included a man named Marbury, who like Adams was a staunch Federalist. The appointees were lump sum approved by Congress on the eve of March 3, 1801. The responsibility to deliver the commissions fell upon a guy by the name of John Marshall, who himself had just been confirmed as the new Chief Justice of the United States, and had been a House member from the State of Virginia. Marshall was also acting Secretary of State at the request of President Adams. Marshall delivered all the commissions except a few, which included William Marbury, and expected the incumbent Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the rest. It did not work the way Marshall expected though..or did it?
The next day, President Thomas Jefferson told his Attorney General Levi Lincoln not to deliver the remaining commissions, and reasoned that since they had not been delivered on time, the commissions were null and void. The new Secretary of State James Madison had not arrived to assume his office when this decision was made by Jefferson.
William Marbury directly petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus (a court order that requires an official to do his duty) and compel Madison to deliver his commission.
I'm going to stop here for a moment and explain what is called "chain of evidence" to you all.
When a criminal investigator arrives at a crime scene the only thing he/she are looking for is proof that a crime has been committed, this is called evidence and can be anything material, such as fingerprints, broken glass, blood splatters or phone records. This evidence must be carefully logged, time stamped, address of crime, case number and officers name who gathered it and location within the crime scene. If photos are taken those are also evidence and must be logged into the case file. If, on the challenge of the defendant any one of above listed procedures are not followed the whole package of material evidence is not allowed to be heard in the court proceedings. Evidence must be meticulously cared for or the case goes no where. This very concept is also applied to procedural or potential application of making Laws or judicial review. Judicial review is simply reviewing civil or criminal cases by a superior court judge(s) that make sure all the legal applications were applied, from start to finish and the proper verdict was rendered. So again if any errors are done in the process the case is tossed.
So Marbury petitions the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Marshall (yep that John Marshall) and 3 Associate Judges hear the case. In the meantime Congress passes the Judiciary Act of 1802 which effectively repeals the Judiciary Act of 1801 (which by the way the 1801 Act has a clause allowing the U.S. Supreme Court judicial review but neither of the other two Acts have that clause). The judicial review process had been around for ages and ages. The process had even been discussed at the Philadelphia Convention and rejected as an authority for the Supreme Court. Hamilton in Federalist 78-83 thoroughly discusses the Article III authority of the Supreme Court.
"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of the power must perceive that in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of strength or the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgment." Hamilton, Federalist 78.
The most quoted and what activist judges base their authority on also comes from Federalist 78:
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It is therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two that which has the superior obligation and validity ought of course be preferred; or in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
However, the next paragraph says this: “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the ill of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
Hamilton continues in his essays to admonish the judges to base any decisions on Constitutional Law and they are the intermediates between the people and the legislatures. That judges are not to judge on their personal will or political position but always on the side of the people. Judgment is not opinion based on personal views or biases but based on Constitutional intent and purpose only.
No matter what Hamilton says (Hamilton was a famous Federalist) the Founder, Framers and especially the Ratifiers did not mention "judicial review" in Article III as part of the Supreme Courts powers..If they would have wanted it there it would have been written into the article.
Back to Marbury v Madison:
In 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall handed down a unanimous opinion and here is his ruling in short order;
* Marbury had legal right to commission
* It was a "plain" violation for Madison to withhold the commission.
* Writ of Mandamus was proper remedy.
*Congressional legislation contrary to the Federal Constitution is null and void and cannot be enforced by a court of law.
* That the U.S. Supreme Court was sole interpreter of Constitutional Law.
Five seemingly innocent opinions. The first three are considered proper law, but the last two changed the Supreme Court Standing with the other two branches of government. It not only made them equal but expanded Article III to include authority over those two branches. Let us go through the "evidential process" to see if the opinion meets the standards of "judicial review".
*One of the requirements of the Supreme Court to hear a petition directly filed by a citizen is for that person to be an Ambassador or Consul. Marbury was a wealthy business owner, the appointment was for a Federal Justice of the Peace, and he was a staunch Federalist. He was not an Ambassador.
*John Marshall was an appointed Chief Justice and Acting Secretary of State when commissions were to be delivered. It should also be noted that President Adams appointed Marshall from the House of Representatives in the "lame duck" period from February 1801 to March 1801, when Jefferson would be the newly elected President. This is also the period when the Judiciary Act of 1801 was passed allowing for the Supreme Court judicial review as well as the expansion of the Federal Courts, Judges and Federal Districts. John Marshall was a noted and famous Federalist and believed that the Supreme Court should be equal to the two other branches of government and the court had judicial review over Congress and President. A case he argued in the ratification meeting in his home State of Virginia...he lost the argument and the ratification of the Articles passed as they stood.
*Did John Marshall recuse himself? NO, in fact he deemed it as unimportant as to his personal view was. His opinion says otherwise.
*Even though Hamilton, another staunch Federalist, indicates in his Federalist (not to be confused with the political party) that the Supreme Court would have the authority of judicial review it is an opinion based on his own Federalist political beliefs and not the intentions of the Framers and Ratifiers.
*Marbury had no standing with the Supreme Court to petition for a writ of mandamus. He did have standing in a lesser Federal court to file his petition.
*Since Marbury had no standing for his petition except in a lesser court, then the Supreme Court had no authority or standing to accept the petition.
Chief Justice Marshall made his decision on the Judiciary Act of 1801 which had the clause that the Supreme Court had the authority of judicial review of Congressional Laws when this Act had been repealed in 1802.
*The fact remains that under Article III the Ratifiers gave no authority for judicial review nor granted Congress the authority to even grant such review. This would mean that the Judiciary Act of 1801 in and of itself is Unconstitutional when it authorized judicial review by the Supreme Court.
*When the Supreme Court Justices reached to the Judiciary Act of 1789, they over extenuated their authority to opinionate on a non-existent Act that had nothing to do with Unconstitutional Laws.
*The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a Constitutional mandate to set the guidelines for the Judicial Branch of government; Article 1, sec 8 and Article III, sec 1 gives Congress that authority.
*The Judiciary Act of 1879 was never a Constitutional issue. Marshall made it one.
With the above I have stated 11 evidential facts that Marbury v Madison is outside the Supreme Courts authority to opinionate on. In the old days we'd say "bag it and tag it, this one is a winner". Meaning we had enough evidence to convict, and John Marshall and associates have no Constitutional evidence to substantiate their opinion. None, zero, zilch, nada....
Legal scholars, Judges and lawyers of today and the years following John Marshall’s death believe that he made the "right" and prudent decision according to Constitutional restrictions. These people are called "activist" and also believe that the Constitution is a living document and can be changed by time and belief fitting the issues of the day without Congressional or public approval. These Judges especially believe that they are the only ones that have the authority to determine what our rights are. These Judges after John Marshall’s opinion base many of their opinions on case laws that are not based on Constitutional Law. The reason for that is John Marshall opened the door for Mans Law to override Constitutional Law. The flip side of this is that the U.S. Court of Appeals can now and has for a very long time made law, instead of "judge" the laws. They have maneuvered themselves into the position of sole and absolute and final arbitrators of what rights you have, even though they are inalienable, the Justices are self-empowered to determine what those are and who has them, and can take them away at any time.
Thomas Jefferson after Marbury v Madison opinion.
.."A mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they choose."
Constitutional Scholar Leonard W. Levy on Marbury v Madison;
"(In) no other cases in our Constitutional history has the court held unconstitutional an act of Congress whose Constitutionality was not an issue."
One more interesting note about Chief Justice John Marshall; in over 500 opinions handed down by him, this is the only one that declared an act of Congress as Unconstitutional.
dEmIGODS have come to rule the land.
Today, right now, at this moment the U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of making Law that will affect your very personal lives. Or they are making Unconstitutional law, such as ObamaCare, that will affect your personal lives. When, since Chief Justice John Marshall has the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Congressional Law....hint there was no Congressional Law until around 1875. Another question, why did the U.S. Supreme Court sits by and allows President Lincoln to impose Habeas Corpus in 1861? And why did they sit by and allow Congress to strip President Johnson of his Constitutional Authority as Commander-in-Chief in the Reconstruction era? And why did the U.S. Supreme Court sit by and allow the Congress to force the rebel states to ratify the 14th amendment before re-admittance to Statehood?
Believe it or not, these inactions as well as the actions have directly affected you to this very day. The answer is very simple. These people that sit on the highest bench in the judicial system are nationalist who believe in a large and intrusive government. They are not Constitutionalist. Their many decisions are based on Mans Law, a process that is not productive and does not empower the people nor maintain or defend those inalienable rights. We are so entangled in the legal process of Mans Law that the Supreme Court has selectively and in many cases contradictively confused the Constitutional issues. Even Hamilton says that the final decision in the process of governance and the judicial process is solely the peoples’ rights and no others.
That process is done through the amendment process as stated in Article V. When Congress gets out of line, the people change it through Article V. With the collective agreement of 38 States in the ratification of one single amendment the abuse and over extended authoritarian Supreme Court can be brought back into Constitutional restraints.
God, the Supreme Judge of us all, have mercy on these poor fools that rule and are ruled by man’s imperfections. And I, your faithful servant will be locked and loaded until such time as Your Laws once again cover this Nation.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/db 'The Lawman'
The New Federalist Papers #12 Part 2
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
LADY JUSTICE GOES TO THE CLEANERS
DEMIGODS II
USURPATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE SUPREME COURT
I'm kinda like a dog with a bone, the longer I chew on it and the tastier it gets, and I never have to bury it because I'm going to gnaw it till it's all gone. While I chew on that bone I usually am contemplating something, sometimes it's constructive, sometimes not, and sometimes, just to have some mischievous fun, as my significant other will vouch for (nothing mean, hurtful or disrespectful to her).
When I'm really serious I contemplate making sense out of why people do what they do. I'm the kinda guy that feels everybody has a reason for doing whatever it is that they do, even I fall into that category. I never ask; "Why me, God?" because I really don't want to know His answer to that question, I'll know soon enough as it is.
After my last article on Marbury v Madison I got to contemplating, the longer I contemplated the more reason I feel that I need to further explain why the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution did not give the U.S. Supreme Court the authority of judicial review of Congressional Laws.
Everyone has a reason for doing what they do falls into two categories of mental state; culpable or non-culpable. In criminal law, "culpable" is defined as a criminal state of mind or as a non-criminal state of mind. Of course a person that has been legally classified as insane is not applicable to any mental state. Most of us fall within the non-culpable mental state, and less than 10% of the population fall in to a culpable mental state, but all of us have been in either state of mind at one time or another. What I will be talking about are the white collared criminally culpable people or more specifically, elected or appointed officials involved in treason, making of Unconstitutional Laws, oath violators, bribe takers and supporters of terrorists.
To better understand this we need to discuss why those white collar criminals feel they can break the law with impunity. It's very simple: U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Review.
At the Philadelphia Convention the Judicial Branch of the Federal government was discussed. Part of that discussion was the age old concept of the courts being able to review court cases and this is called Judicial Review. When the debate ended it was determined that the new U.S. Supreme Court would NOT have the power to review Congressional Law. The Court could review lower case decisions but only under certain guidelines.
This understanding also empowered the Congress to actually form the Court System and in certain instances approve the appointments of the President to be Federal Judges. The delegates also determined that the Supreme Court had not legal authority over the other two branches of government.
The primary reason that the delegates did not want the Supreme Court having authority over the Legislative or Executive Branch is because of English Law. Most Colonials hated the English Court system. It was biased, corrupt and subject to the Kings whim. The English Army enforced English Law, and once arrested very rarely did a trial take place. If they were so lucky to have a trial one had to prove his/her innocence, and even that may not be enough because the sentencing was at the Kings wishes and Her Majesty's Judges were obligated to the Crown, not the subject.
Many innocent men were hanged by the British and the New American Government wanted no part of that system. So they effectively stymied the Supreme Court by not allowing judicial review of Congressional Laws. This was a Major break of old English Law and unique to the newly formed Constitutional Republic, a Nation of Laws, subject to the people, not the government.
Almost immediately after the ratification of the Articles in 1789, the First Congressional Session passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, signed by President George Washington on September 24, 1789. This Act was by Constitutional Mandate to Congress to structure the U.S. Supreme Court and inferior Courts. It gave no more authority to the courts then spelled out in Article III, nor denied any of that authority.
However a major breach in this view came from the second President of the United States: John Adams. John Adams was a very convicted Federalist, meaning he believed in a powerful central government with wide ranching powers. He was also lucky enough to have the Majority of Congress agree with him. In fact Adams was so lucky that the Quasi-War with France was going on in his administration, so the Fifth U.S. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. This Act directed its attention to U.S. Citizens that supported France and who advocated for States to secede from the Union. This was a result that led to some arrests and conviction in the Federal Courts. Now tell me, is this a Constitutional Act? Personally I believe it to be a very biased and politically directed Law, yet many of those that made the Act were original Ratifiers of the Articles.
The other not so obvious question is this: why no judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court? Answer: because the Court had no authority to do so. As it would seem the man that would determine the "right" of judicial review 5 years later was a member of the House of Representative when the Sedition Act was passed; John Marshall. Did Mr. Marshall jump and shout, "Foul, the U.S. Supreme Court must judicially review this Law"...NO he did not.
John Marshall was a well-known advocate of the Federalist Political party and had argued during the ratification process in the State of Virginia for Supreme Court judicial review of Congressional Law and lost the debate. Now he sits silent in the year 1798, allowing Congress and the President to selectively target and suppress the freedom of speech and other inalienable rights, and State Rights of Sovereignty to succeed if they wished.
Five years later this same John Marshall as the Chief Justice of the United States opinionates that the Supreme Court has the right to judicially review Congressional Law. What I find highly suspect with this is that John Marshall absolutely knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Ratifiers did not give the Supreme Court that power as did President John Adams, and every single Congressman knew it as well.
We'll put judicial review aside now and see how the Constitution directs us to deal with over extended Congressional Laws.
First there are two Houses of Congress; the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate are Representatives of the State, two for each State. The Representatives are elected by citizens of each state according to population, thus forming a balance of delegated representation. However the Senate is considered the Senior House because of required qualifications to be a Senator. The Senate also keeps an overzealous House in check and the Senate approves all Presidential appointees to the Supreme Court, Ambassadors, etc.
The President as Executive of government has a variety of authorities and one of these is a veto power, and what is even kinda bizarre is that power is listed in Article I, not Article II as you would think it would be. So why is that...because there are really very simple steps to legislating Unconstitutional laws:
First, the Senate can pass or deny the House Bill, Senate denial stops the process. If the bill makes it past the Senate it goes to the President to sign. The President can either sign or veto. If he vetoes the bill it is returned the House of Representatives for reconsideration or it lies dead. If it is reconsidered and passes the House by two thirds vote is then sent to the Senate who also has to pass the bill by two thirds vote...if it fails to reach the vote it is dead, if it passes both Houses it is Congressional Law, and not subject to Presidential signature or veto.
What I have described above is the checks and balances of the Constitution to assure that no Laws are made that violate citizen rights or the due process of law.
*The Senate checks the House, the President checks the Congress and the Congress checks the President, the Constitutional mandated cycle of safe-guards. You will notice that the Supreme Court is not mentioned in this cycle.
Our Founding Fathers, Framers and Ratifiers knew that if any of that cycle was broken the Republic would be lost. These men devised the simplest and truest form of maintaining a Constitutional Republic ever, in world history. Today that Republic stands in danger by elected and appointed officials involved in criminal acts.
The reason those officials commit criminal acts is because the cycle of the Congressional Process has been broken. I don't know who first broke it or necessarily when...I just know it's broken. I can give my opinion as to that, so here it is: When Congress first breached the cycle was when their first Unconstitutional Act went unchecked in 1798, compounded by allowing a Chief Justice to usurp the very foundation of Congressional Legislation with judicial review of all Congressional Laws. The breach may have been only a trickle over many, many years but the breach was made and no one plugged the hole.
When the progressive movement started its formation and movement in the early 20th century one of the first things they understood was the breach in the cycle. So over time and the election of more and stronger progressive advocates the breach widened. Eventually Congress was over extending their authority, often times at the blessing of the Supreme Court and the President. Finally the time arrives when these elected officials become criminals and exempt themselves from any judicial process or criminal acts.
These elected criminals are now considering legalizing criminal foreign nationals. The President is advocating attacking a sovereign Nation without cause, yet he politically and financially supports terrorism, and Congress allocates the money for him to do so.
Congress is financing non-enumerated presidential departments for social projects and the advancement of socialism. The U.S. Supreme Court is overruling State Constitutional Laws and selectively targeting minority groups for superior rights.
Congress is forcing an Unconstitutional mandated health care system upon the public and it is against their will. Then the Courts ruling - it is not only constitutional but imposing another unconstitutional tax law down our throats. I would go on but I'm thinking you have the point...there is nothing thus far that is stopping their criminal behavior or acts.
Almost done here, so if you thought I'd leave you out of this without a good tongue lashing, you are mistaken.
So where have you been my fine socialist friend while all this has happened? Did you buy into the system because is all so easy to just fill the cracks and be irresponsible? Or have you been lazy and let that Bible thumping, Constitutional radical next door do all the work and take the heat? Have you blamed the present generation for the wrongs of slavery all so many years ago and calling it racism when it really is not? Did you vote for a President because of his color or his ability and if color, you my friend are the racist. Do you feel that this county just runs itself or that there will always be someone in government to take care of your needs? Do you believe that the color of a person’s skin exempts them from any crime they may commit? Have you or do you renounce God as having a place in our government. Do you believe it is your right to keep and bear arms? What have you done today for your neighbor or community? Spray painting graffiti on the park wall is not a community project by the way.
Last two biggies....Have you ever paid taxes? Have you ever served you country in any manner, not just military service, although that is a service, and I’m talking about our country, not the government? Country by definition is the people who live within the National boundaries.
And lastly...Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States of America, and do you know it restricts government, not empowers it?
I'm pretty sure that some of you are pretty brain dead by now in reading this so I'll depart from your thoughts with a request. Join an Article V movement to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. These amendments are abusive to our general welfare and unconstitutional in violating our basic rights and State Sovereignty.
The elected and appointed officials use these amendments to gain more power and authority over the general public and are criminal in doing so. They need to be repealed by using Article V and the 28th amendment. Congress, the President and the Supreme Court have no involvement and is a peoples’ right to do as empowered in the Constitution. We are not a lawless nation, We, the people are a Nation of Laws.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
cl/db
LADY JUSTICE GOES TO THE CLEANERS
DEMIGODS II
USURPATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE SUPREME COURT
I'm kinda like a dog with a bone, the longer I chew on it and the tastier it gets, and I never have to bury it because I'm going to gnaw it till it's all gone. While I chew on that bone I usually am contemplating something, sometimes it's constructive, sometimes not, and sometimes, just to have some mischievous fun, as my significant other will vouch for (nothing mean, hurtful or disrespectful to her).
When I'm really serious I contemplate making sense out of why people do what they do. I'm the kinda guy that feels everybody has a reason for doing whatever it is that they do, even I fall into that category. I never ask; "Why me, God?" because I really don't want to know His answer to that question, I'll know soon enough as it is.
After my last article on Marbury v Madison I got to contemplating, the longer I contemplated the more reason I feel that I need to further explain why the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution did not give the U.S. Supreme Court the authority of judicial review of Congressional Laws.
Everyone has a reason for doing what they do falls into two categories of mental state; culpable or non-culpable. In criminal law, "culpable" is defined as a criminal state of mind or as a non-criminal state of mind. Of course a person that has been legally classified as insane is not applicable to any mental state. Most of us fall within the non-culpable mental state, and less than 10% of the population fall in to a culpable mental state, but all of us have been in either state of mind at one time or another. What I will be talking about are the white collared criminally culpable people or more specifically, elected or appointed officials involved in treason, making of Unconstitutional Laws, oath violators, bribe takers and supporters of terrorists.
To better understand this we need to discuss why those white collar criminals feel they can break the law with impunity. It's very simple: U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Review.
At the Philadelphia Convention the Judicial Branch of the Federal government was discussed. Part of that discussion was the age old concept of the courts being able to review court cases and this is called Judicial Review. When the debate ended it was determined that the new U.S. Supreme Court would NOT have the power to review Congressional Law. The Court could review lower case decisions but only under certain guidelines.
This understanding also empowered the Congress to actually form the Court System and in certain instances approve the appointments of the President to be Federal Judges. The delegates also determined that the Supreme Court had not legal authority over the other two branches of government.
The primary reason that the delegates did not want the Supreme Court having authority over the Legislative or Executive Branch is because of English Law. Most Colonials hated the English Court system. It was biased, corrupt and subject to the Kings whim. The English Army enforced English Law, and once arrested very rarely did a trial take place. If they were so lucky to have a trial one had to prove his/her innocence, and even that may not be enough because the sentencing was at the Kings wishes and Her Majesty's Judges were obligated to the Crown, not the subject.
Many innocent men were hanged by the British and the New American Government wanted no part of that system. So they effectively stymied the Supreme Court by not allowing judicial review of Congressional Laws. This was a Major break of old English Law and unique to the newly formed Constitutional Republic, a Nation of Laws, subject to the people, not the government.
Almost immediately after the ratification of the Articles in 1789, the First Congressional Session passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, signed by President George Washington on September 24, 1789. This Act was by Constitutional Mandate to Congress to structure the U.S. Supreme Court and inferior Courts. It gave no more authority to the courts then spelled out in Article III, nor denied any of that authority.
However a major breach in this view came from the second President of the United States: John Adams. John Adams was a very convicted Federalist, meaning he believed in a powerful central government with wide ranching powers. He was also lucky enough to have the Majority of Congress agree with him. In fact Adams was so lucky that the Quasi-War with France was going on in his administration, so the Fifth U.S. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. This Act directed its attention to U.S. Citizens that supported France and who advocated for States to secede from the Union. This was a result that led to some arrests and conviction in the Federal Courts. Now tell me, is this a Constitutional Act? Personally I believe it to be a very biased and politically directed Law, yet many of those that made the Act were original Ratifiers of the Articles.
The other not so obvious question is this: why no judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court? Answer: because the Court had no authority to do so. As it would seem the man that would determine the "right" of judicial review 5 years later was a member of the House of Representative when the Sedition Act was passed; John Marshall. Did Mr. Marshall jump and shout, "Foul, the U.S. Supreme Court must judicially review this Law"...NO he did not.
John Marshall was a well-known advocate of the Federalist Political party and had argued during the ratification process in the State of Virginia for Supreme Court judicial review of Congressional Law and lost the debate. Now he sits silent in the year 1798, allowing Congress and the President to selectively target and suppress the freedom of speech and other inalienable rights, and State Rights of Sovereignty to succeed if they wished.
Five years later this same John Marshall as the Chief Justice of the United States opinionates that the Supreme Court has the right to judicially review Congressional Law. What I find highly suspect with this is that John Marshall absolutely knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Ratifiers did not give the Supreme Court that power as did President John Adams, and every single Congressman knew it as well.
We'll put judicial review aside now and see how the Constitution directs us to deal with over extended Congressional Laws.
First there are two Houses of Congress; the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate are Representatives of the State, two for each State. The Representatives are elected by citizens of each state according to population, thus forming a balance of delegated representation. However the Senate is considered the Senior House because of required qualifications to be a Senator. The Senate also keeps an overzealous House in check and the Senate approves all Presidential appointees to the Supreme Court, Ambassadors, etc.
The President as Executive of government has a variety of authorities and one of these is a veto power, and what is even kinda bizarre is that power is listed in Article I, not Article II as you would think it would be. So why is that...because there are really very simple steps to legislating Unconstitutional laws:
First, the Senate can pass or deny the House Bill, Senate denial stops the process. If the bill makes it past the Senate it goes to the President to sign. The President can either sign or veto. If he vetoes the bill it is returned the House of Representatives for reconsideration or it lies dead. If it is reconsidered and passes the House by two thirds vote is then sent to the Senate who also has to pass the bill by two thirds vote...if it fails to reach the vote it is dead, if it passes both Houses it is Congressional Law, and not subject to Presidential signature or veto.
What I have described above is the checks and balances of the Constitution to assure that no Laws are made that violate citizen rights or the due process of law.
*The Senate checks the House, the President checks the Congress and the Congress checks the President, the Constitutional mandated cycle of safe-guards. You will notice that the Supreme Court is not mentioned in this cycle.
Our Founding Fathers, Framers and Ratifiers knew that if any of that cycle was broken the Republic would be lost. These men devised the simplest and truest form of maintaining a Constitutional Republic ever, in world history. Today that Republic stands in danger by elected and appointed officials involved in criminal acts.
The reason those officials commit criminal acts is because the cycle of the Congressional Process has been broken. I don't know who first broke it or necessarily when...I just know it's broken. I can give my opinion as to that, so here it is: When Congress first breached the cycle was when their first Unconstitutional Act went unchecked in 1798, compounded by allowing a Chief Justice to usurp the very foundation of Congressional Legislation with judicial review of all Congressional Laws. The breach may have been only a trickle over many, many years but the breach was made and no one plugged the hole.
When the progressive movement started its formation and movement in the early 20th century one of the first things they understood was the breach in the cycle. So over time and the election of more and stronger progressive advocates the breach widened. Eventually Congress was over extending their authority, often times at the blessing of the Supreme Court and the President. Finally the time arrives when these elected officials become criminals and exempt themselves from any judicial process or criminal acts.
These elected criminals are now considering legalizing criminal foreign nationals. The President is advocating attacking a sovereign Nation without cause, yet he politically and financially supports terrorism, and Congress allocates the money for him to do so.
Congress is financing non-enumerated presidential departments for social projects and the advancement of socialism. The U.S. Supreme Court is overruling State Constitutional Laws and selectively targeting minority groups for superior rights.
Congress is forcing an Unconstitutional mandated health care system upon the public and it is against their will. Then the Courts ruling - it is not only constitutional but imposing another unconstitutional tax law down our throats. I would go on but I'm thinking you have the point...there is nothing thus far that is stopping their criminal behavior or acts.
Almost done here, so if you thought I'd leave you out of this without a good tongue lashing, you are mistaken.
So where have you been my fine socialist friend while all this has happened? Did you buy into the system because is all so easy to just fill the cracks and be irresponsible? Or have you been lazy and let that Bible thumping, Constitutional radical next door do all the work and take the heat? Have you blamed the present generation for the wrongs of slavery all so many years ago and calling it racism when it really is not? Did you vote for a President because of his color or his ability and if color, you my friend are the racist. Do you feel that this county just runs itself or that there will always be someone in government to take care of your needs? Do you believe that the color of a person’s skin exempts them from any crime they may commit? Have you or do you renounce God as having a place in our government. Do you believe it is your right to keep and bear arms? What have you done today for your neighbor or community? Spray painting graffiti on the park wall is not a community project by the way.
Last two biggies....Have you ever paid taxes? Have you ever served you country in any manner, not just military service, although that is a service, and I’m talking about our country, not the government? Country by definition is the people who live within the National boundaries.
And lastly...Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States of America, and do you know it restricts government, not empowers it?
I'm pretty sure that some of you are pretty brain dead by now in reading this so I'll depart from your thoughts with a request. Join an Article V movement to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. These amendments are abusive to our general welfare and unconstitutional in violating our basic rights and State Sovereignty.
The elected and appointed officials use these amendments to gain more power and authority over the general public and are criminal in doing so. They need to be repealed by using Article V and the 28th amendment. Congress, the President and the Supreme Court have no involvement and is a peoples’ right to do as empowered in the Constitution. We are not a lawless nation, We, the people are a Nation of Laws.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
cl/db
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #13
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
IN DEFENSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AGAINST LEGISLATIVE ACTION
AND AN INTENSE PUBLIC RELATIONS ASSAULT
USURPING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE EFFORT TO DISARM AMERICA
THE 2ND AMENDMENT TEXT
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The second 'Expressed Limit' of the central branch of government toward a defined right of 'The People'. (The Bill of Rights-Amendments 1-10).
Today the Second Amendment is under constant assault from public officials and elected representatives who work from local to national positions, and who support a 'progressive' agenda that seeks to control limit/restrict the rights of private ownership of guns. These organizations are well funded, well positioned, expansively organized and powerfully connected. Their public relations apparatus' are actively engaged in deceit about-discredit of-and the ultimate destruction of the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms'.
When representative government designs-passes and makes laws that are a detriment to the Constitution of the United States, these actions are a Usurpation.
My Fellow Americans, let me address the seriousness of this condition in America today, by pointing out one of the most glaring examples of a people forced to surrender their weapons to their government in the name of the 'public good'. Public dis-information was the precursor to such action.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
*For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission,....
If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things. ~ Adolf Hitler
Hitler based his confiscation of firearms on a Law and Order and Public Safety Platform.
Resource reference:
NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS
17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law,
No. 3, 483-535 (2000) Stephen P. Halbrook*
Introduction
"We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end." ~ Justice Felix Frankfurter
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. ~ Adolph Hitler
Gun control laws are depicted as benign and historically progressive.
(an excerpt of Nazi Law examination)
The supreme commander tacked proclamations to the walls: “Warning! All arms are to be surrendered immediately. Whoever is caught with arms in his possession will be shot on the spot!” What could the poor citizen of average intelligence do? Surrender -- but how? If he took his rifle under his arm to take it to the place where arms were collected, he would be shot on the steps of his house by a passing patrol. If he came to the door and opened it, we all took shots at him because he was armed. If he got as far as the street, we would put him up against the wall. If he stuck his rifle under his coat it was still worse . . . I suggested that they tie their rifles on a long string and drag them behind them. I would have laughed myself sick if I had seen them go down the street doing it.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
You should do your own research, determine your own opinion of the environment of intrusive government into your life, ask the hard questions, and arrive at the answer you do or do not accept. I have done that work and made that choice for myself. As a pro-active measure I wish to share/offer a help for all who wish to utilize. The following is a sample letter all may use. It demands that our representatives actually represent our wishes and not their personal desires. Americans who believe in Constitutional Law and our Inalienable rights - Please send this letter out to your Representatives to protest gun grabber bills and treaties.
Senator or Congressman,
Why have you bought into the lie that more 'draconian restrictions', and more 'gun control', will lessen gun violence and make the populace safer? That mindset flies in the face of rational reasoning, and also in the face of your own Governmental compiled data since 1970 when Gun restrictions have shown a significant drop in those crimes where the laws have been eased. Statistics from the FBI and Justice Department have shown the correlation between a freely armed civilian populace and a significantly lower gun crime, and violent crime rate. If you want to do something to protect the public as you profess you do, end the gun free zones, since those zones are where the majority of gun crimes takes place.
Use your intelligence and common sense to see the Sandy Hook incident, the Colorado Theater incident, the Virginia Tech incident, the Columbine incident, all have one thing in common; The Gun Free Status, which is directly attributable to the Progressive Democratic Agenda to severely restrict private carry of guns, by law abiding citizens. Why is that? Why don't you trust the Law Abiding Public? Attack the Criminals that are the cause of crime, by enforcing the many, many laws already on the books. Stop attacking the law abiding citizens for wanting to exercise their God Given Right to Self-Protection. To do other than that, suggests a nefarious hidden agenda on the part of the Progressive Democrats, to eliminate the Second Amendment Protections, and that in turn, would give rise to a major increase in the violence and gun crimes, by the very criminals who ignore the law anyway.
If you wish to persist in your ideas about the merits of gun control and banning, please, try to convince me that I am the one who is wrong in my thought processes instead of you. Tell me (sir or madame), if you can; If severe restrictions and draconian control facilitate lower gun crimes, and Illinois (Chicago being the strictest) has the most draconian ones on record, and their laws in Chicago are comparable with ones in New York ( NYC) and Connecticut ( Sandy Hook), WHY IS Chicago, NYC, and recently Sandy Hook so dangerous for unarmed innocent citizens?
If Gun Free zones create lower shooting incidents and lower violent crime rates, why do the majority if those incidents, and incidentally, the incidents with the highest body counts, happen primarily in legislated Gun Free Zones? Only the Law Abiding Citizen will comply with the Gun free Zones, and thus expose themselves to a much higher threat level from the criminal element and mentally deranged, who have historically proven consistently through their actions, they ignore all the laws anyway.
You say you are for the Assault Weapon (( misnamed since true assault weapons are select fire automatics)), and Clip Capacity Bans, but can you tell me why the previous 10 year- long Assault Weapon and Clip Capacity Ban had absolutely no impact on gun crime over the entire ten (10) year period they were on the books? That statement is a fact, and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by what the Government's own Statistics irrefutably show? (Sir or Madame), you know why, but you refuse to admit the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of rights because the Founding Fathers deemed it necessary for the public to be able and capable of protecting themselves, resisting any possible invasion, and also for resisting an oppressive government, should that ever become necessary. You also know beyond peradventure, that the current Political rhetoric about Hunting and Sport shooting are not the reasons for the Second Amendment either.
Obey the Second Amendment, as Constitutional Law requires you to do, and remember you took an Oath of Office to uphold it. Stop infringing on Americans Constitutional Rights at the Federal Level.
The proposed set of restrictions and bans places an unfair burden on all minorities and women. Maybe an Amicus Curiae brief outlining how it unfairly impacts them on the subject would influence you if it were filed in federal court to allege that the proposed bill is deliberately Racist in Nature, and places an unreasonable burden on all minorities in its effect, and/or that it does not follow the "Rule of Law" because of the unfair burden placed on minorities, women in general, especially minority women, by preventing them from being able to protect themselves, combined with the fact that it deliberately is not equally applied to American Citizens, because government officials and a few select others are exempt from its jurisdiction.
I intend to bring these things up in Court should the bill (gun control bill name & number here) pass. If you choose to hide behind the wording of the Second Amendment citing Militia, you should know that Congress defined the term over 100 years ago as the Organized and Unorganized Militia with the Organized Militia being the Army and National Guard, and the unorganized Militia as the rest of American Citizens.
What are your thoughts on this ( Representatives name here).
When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community." ~ Adolf Hitler
Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer
For a history of the 2nd amendment on our own site:
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/bill-of-rights.html
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/'The Tradesman'
IN DEFENSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AGAINST LEGISLATIVE ACTION
AND AN INTENSE PUBLIC RELATIONS ASSAULT
USURPING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE EFFORT TO DISARM AMERICA
THE 2ND AMENDMENT TEXT
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The second 'Expressed Limit' of the central branch of government toward a defined right of 'The People'. (The Bill of Rights-Amendments 1-10).
Today the Second Amendment is under constant assault from public officials and elected representatives who work from local to national positions, and who support a 'progressive' agenda that seeks to control limit/restrict the rights of private ownership of guns. These organizations are well funded, well positioned, expansively organized and powerfully connected. Their public relations apparatus' are actively engaged in deceit about-discredit of-and the ultimate destruction of the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms'.
When representative government designs-passes and makes laws that are a detriment to the Constitution of the United States, these actions are a Usurpation.
My Fellow Americans, let me address the seriousness of this condition in America today, by pointing out one of the most glaring examples of a people forced to surrender their weapons to their government in the name of the 'public good'. Public dis-information was the precursor to such action.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
*For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission,....
If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things. ~ Adolf Hitler
Hitler based his confiscation of firearms on a Law and Order and Public Safety Platform.
Resource reference:
NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS
17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law,
No. 3, 483-535 (2000) Stephen P. Halbrook*
Introduction
"We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end." ~ Justice Felix Frankfurter
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. ~ Adolph Hitler
Gun control laws are depicted as benign and historically progressive.
(an excerpt of Nazi Law examination)
The supreme commander tacked proclamations to the walls: “Warning! All arms are to be surrendered immediately. Whoever is caught with arms in his possession will be shot on the spot!” What could the poor citizen of average intelligence do? Surrender -- but how? If he took his rifle under his arm to take it to the place where arms were collected, he would be shot on the steps of his house by a passing patrol. If he came to the door and opened it, we all took shots at him because he was armed. If he got as far as the street, we would put him up against the wall. If he stuck his rifle under his coat it was still worse . . . I suggested that they tie their rifles on a long string and drag them behind them. I would have laughed myself sick if I had seen them go down the street doing it.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
You should do your own research, determine your own opinion of the environment of intrusive government into your life, ask the hard questions, and arrive at the answer you do or do not accept. I have done that work and made that choice for myself. As a pro-active measure I wish to share/offer a help for all who wish to utilize. The following is a sample letter all may use. It demands that our representatives actually represent our wishes and not their personal desires. Americans who believe in Constitutional Law and our Inalienable rights - Please send this letter out to your Representatives to protest gun grabber bills and treaties.
Senator or Congressman,
Why have you bought into the lie that more 'draconian restrictions', and more 'gun control', will lessen gun violence and make the populace safer? That mindset flies in the face of rational reasoning, and also in the face of your own Governmental compiled data since 1970 when Gun restrictions have shown a significant drop in those crimes where the laws have been eased. Statistics from the FBI and Justice Department have shown the correlation between a freely armed civilian populace and a significantly lower gun crime, and violent crime rate. If you want to do something to protect the public as you profess you do, end the gun free zones, since those zones are where the majority of gun crimes takes place.
Use your intelligence and common sense to see the Sandy Hook incident, the Colorado Theater incident, the Virginia Tech incident, the Columbine incident, all have one thing in common; The Gun Free Status, which is directly attributable to the Progressive Democratic Agenda to severely restrict private carry of guns, by law abiding citizens. Why is that? Why don't you trust the Law Abiding Public? Attack the Criminals that are the cause of crime, by enforcing the many, many laws already on the books. Stop attacking the law abiding citizens for wanting to exercise their God Given Right to Self-Protection. To do other than that, suggests a nefarious hidden agenda on the part of the Progressive Democrats, to eliminate the Second Amendment Protections, and that in turn, would give rise to a major increase in the violence and gun crimes, by the very criminals who ignore the law anyway.
If you wish to persist in your ideas about the merits of gun control and banning, please, try to convince me that I am the one who is wrong in my thought processes instead of you. Tell me (sir or madame), if you can; If severe restrictions and draconian control facilitate lower gun crimes, and Illinois (Chicago being the strictest) has the most draconian ones on record, and their laws in Chicago are comparable with ones in New York ( NYC) and Connecticut ( Sandy Hook), WHY IS Chicago, NYC, and recently Sandy Hook so dangerous for unarmed innocent citizens?
If Gun Free zones create lower shooting incidents and lower violent crime rates, why do the majority if those incidents, and incidentally, the incidents with the highest body counts, happen primarily in legislated Gun Free Zones? Only the Law Abiding Citizen will comply with the Gun free Zones, and thus expose themselves to a much higher threat level from the criminal element and mentally deranged, who have historically proven consistently through their actions, they ignore all the laws anyway.
You say you are for the Assault Weapon (( misnamed since true assault weapons are select fire automatics)), and Clip Capacity Bans, but can you tell me why the previous 10 year- long Assault Weapon and Clip Capacity Ban had absolutely no impact on gun crime over the entire ten (10) year period they were on the books? That statement is a fact, and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by what the Government's own Statistics irrefutably show? (Sir or Madame), you know why, but you refuse to admit the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of rights because the Founding Fathers deemed it necessary for the public to be able and capable of protecting themselves, resisting any possible invasion, and also for resisting an oppressive government, should that ever become necessary. You also know beyond peradventure, that the current Political rhetoric about Hunting and Sport shooting are not the reasons for the Second Amendment either.
Obey the Second Amendment, as Constitutional Law requires you to do, and remember you took an Oath of Office to uphold it. Stop infringing on Americans Constitutional Rights at the Federal Level.
The proposed set of restrictions and bans places an unfair burden on all minorities and women. Maybe an Amicus Curiae brief outlining how it unfairly impacts them on the subject would influence you if it were filed in federal court to allege that the proposed bill is deliberately Racist in Nature, and places an unreasonable burden on all minorities in its effect, and/or that it does not follow the "Rule of Law" because of the unfair burden placed on minorities, women in general, especially minority women, by preventing them from being able to protect themselves, combined with the fact that it deliberately is not equally applied to American Citizens, because government officials and a few select others are exempt from its jurisdiction.
I intend to bring these things up in Court should the bill (gun control bill name & number here) pass. If you choose to hide behind the wording of the Second Amendment citing Militia, you should know that Congress defined the term over 100 years ago as the Organized and Unorganized Militia with the Organized Militia being the Army and National Guard, and the unorganized Militia as the rest of American Citizens.
What are your thoughts on this ( Representatives name here).
When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community." ~ Adolf Hitler
Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer
For a history of the 2nd amendment on our own site:
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/bill-of-rights.html
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/'The Tradesman'
NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #14 Part 1
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
Article One and the Enumeration of Powers being Usurped by the Federal Government
Article one describes the powers of Congress and establishes the Limitations placed on Congress to circumscribe their power and enumerates the authorized powers of the three branches including their makeup and establishes limits to Congress and the states. The article contains nine sections; section one is the vesting clause of all legislative powers granted.
The vesting Clauses are the provisions in Article Section 1, Article 2 Section 1 Clause 1, and Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution. The three branches of government vested are Congress (Legislative Branch), The President (Executive Branch), and the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch). The constitution expressly creates a clear separation of Federal Governmental powers.
Article 1 Section 1 grants specific powers to Congress (Legislative branch) and mandates it will consist of a House of Representatives and a Senate.
Originally the Senate was not intended to be directly elected by the voters but was to be elected for a six year term by the State Legislatures creating a balance of power, through a check and balance system where the interests of the people would be protected by the House, and the interests of the States would be protected by the Senate thus insuring States Rights being balanced between the rights of the people, interests of the States, and the interests of the Federal Government.
The first problems happened in the 1850's that left Indiana seats vacant because of a conflict between the Democrats in southern Indiana and the emerging Republicans in northern Indiana. This was the start of many conflicts in various states over Slavery and States Rights. The problems were multiplied after the Civil War culminating in the case of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey which led to Congress passing a Law in 1866 that detailed when and how Senators would be elected in the States. That by the way was the first digression from the plan the founders created.
Between 1866 and 1906 there were ninety cases of Bribery brought before the Senate, 45 deadlocks, and in one instance Delaware did not send a Senator to Washington for four years. The States themselves started to experiment with direct election of Senators with Nebraska laying the foundation for States to reflect the peoples will. Then as today the Media under the auspices of William Randolph Hearst (and we think we have a bad main stream media today) took up the crusade for Direct elections and had his reporter David Graham Phillips write scathing articles that became a series known as "The Treason of the Senate", and swayed public opinion against the then provisions of the Constitution, which in turn played into the hands of those who wanted a strong and massive central government.
In 1911 Senator Joseph Bristow a Republican from Kansas proposed a Constitutional Amendment for direct election of Senators being himself a product of direct elections. The Senate eventually passed the Amendment and sent it to the House of Representatives. The House passed it in 1912 and in 1913 the Seventeenth Amendment was added to the Constitution. In retrospect I wonder if that was really such a good idea weakening the States Rights and representation like that. I believe that was one of the first usurpation's of power by Congress that today has had such a dramatic effect on growing the Federal Government.
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 1 enumerates the executive branch be vested in a President for a term of four years along with a vice-President who serves along with him concurrently. It specified the provisions for the States appointing persons to the Electoral College based on the number of Senators and Representatives each State had. The 12th Amendment forbade the President and Vice President from being from the same State.
Article 3 Section 1 The judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court which was specifically established in the Constitution, brought into being by the Judiciary Act of 1789 where it's scope and the scope of the inferior courts were defined (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm). Basically it has appellate jurisdiction over the inferior federal courts that are established by Congress, State Courts involving Federal Law and is the highest Federal court in the US. It is also the final interpreter of Federal Constitutional Law but can only act within the context of a case it has jurisdiction over. One thing most Americans no longer know is the rulings of the Supreme Court can themselves be overruled. It has happened as the ratification of the 11th amendment overruled a previous decision by the Court (Chisholm vs. Georgia 1793). So, with enough citizen pressure even SCOTUS rulings may be overturned by Congressional and State action to create and ratify an amendment to the Constitution, adding to the check and balance system that seems out of favor today with what is essentially SCOTUS and inferior federal courts legislating from the bench. Legislating from the Bench is another usurpation of Constitutional Law the Justices can also be impeached though none have been to date, but maybe some of them should be.
Article 3 Section 2 deals with the jurisdiction stating " The judicial power shall extend in all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or 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; - 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 Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
"In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls. “ And those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have Original Jurisdiction. In all other cases mentioned the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under Regulations as the Congress shall make. (This last is another item the Congress has not enforced in recent times thus adding to highly politicized expansion of Federal Government Powers).
Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme court by various statutes, under authority given to Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in (28 U. S. C. §1251 et seq.), and various special statutes.
The rule making power of SCOTUS is conferred from time to time by Congress and gives SCOTUS the power to prescribe rules of procedure to be followed by the lower courts in the US (See 28 U. S. C. §2071 et seq.).
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/'The Tradesman'
Article One and the Enumeration of Powers being Usurped by the Federal Government
Article one describes the powers of Congress and establishes the Limitations placed on Congress to circumscribe their power and enumerates the authorized powers of the three branches including their makeup and establishes limits to Congress and the states. The article contains nine sections; section one is the vesting clause of all legislative powers granted.
The vesting Clauses are the provisions in Article Section 1, Article 2 Section 1 Clause 1, and Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution. The three branches of government vested are Congress (Legislative Branch), The President (Executive Branch), and the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch). The constitution expressly creates a clear separation of Federal Governmental powers.
Article 1 Section 1 grants specific powers to Congress (Legislative branch) and mandates it will consist of a House of Representatives and a Senate.
Originally the Senate was not intended to be directly elected by the voters but was to be elected for a six year term by the State Legislatures creating a balance of power, through a check and balance system where the interests of the people would be protected by the House, and the interests of the States would be protected by the Senate thus insuring States Rights being balanced between the rights of the people, interests of the States, and the interests of the Federal Government.
The first problems happened in the 1850's that left Indiana seats vacant because of a conflict between the Democrats in southern Indiana and the emerging Republicans in northern Indiana. This was the start of many conflicts in various states over Slavery and States Rights. The problems were multiplied after the Civil War culminating in the case of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey which led to Congress passing a Law in 1866 that detailed when and how Senators would be elected in the States. That by the way was the first digression from the plan the founders created.
Between 1866 and 1906 there were ninety cases of Bribery brought before the Senate, 45 deadlocks, and in one instance Delaware did not send a Senator to Washington for four years. The States themselves started to experiment with direct election of Senators with Nebraska laying the foundation for States to reflect the peoples will. Then as today the Media under the auspices of William Randolph Hearst (and we think we have a bad main stream media today) took up the crusade for Direct elections and had his reporter David Graham Phillips write scathing articles that became a series known as "The Treason of the Senate", and swayed public opinion against the then provisions of the Constitution, which in turn played into the hands of those who wanted a strong and massive central government.
In 1911 Senator Joseph Bristow a Republican from Kansas proposed a Constitutional Amendment for direct election of Senators being himself a product of direct elections. The Senate eventually passed the Amendment and sent it to the House of Representatives. The House passed it in 1912 and in 1913 the Seventeenth Amendment was added to the Constitution. In retrospect I wonder if that was really such a good idea weakening the States Rights and representation like that. I believe that was one of the first usurpation's of power by Congress that today has had such a dramatic effect on growing the Federal Government.
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 1 enumerates the executive branch be vested in a President for a term of four years along with a vice-President who serves along with him concurrently. It specified the provisions for the States appointing persons to the Electoral College based on the number of Senators and Representatives each State had. The 12th Amendment forbade the President and Vice President from being from the same State.
Article 3 Section 1 The judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court which was specifically established in the Constitution, brought into being by the Judiciary Act of 1789 where it's scope and the scope of the inferior courts were defined (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm). Basically it has appellate jurisdiction over the inferior federal courts that are established by Congress, State Courts involving Federal Law and is the highest Federal court in the US. It is also the final interpreter of Federal Constitutional Law but can only act within the context of a case it has jurisdiction over. One thing most Americans no longer know is the rulings of the Supreme Court can themselves be overruled. It has happened as the ratification of the 11th amendment overruled a previous decision by the Court (Chisholm vs. Georgia 1793). So, with enough citizen pressure even SCOTUS rulings may be overturned by Congressional and State action to create and ratify an amendment to the Constitution, adding to the check and balance system that seems out of favor today with what is essentially SCOTUS and inferior federal courts legislating from the bench. Legislating from the Bench is another usurpation of Constitutional Law the Justices can also be impeached though none have been to date, but maybe some of them should be.
Article 3 Section 2 deals with the jurisdiction stating " The judicial power shall extend in all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or 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; - 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 Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
"In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls. “ And those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have Original Jurisdiction. In all other cases mentioned the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under Regulations as the Congress shall make. (This last is another item the Congress has not enforced in recent times thus adding to highly politicized expansion of Federal Government Powers).
Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme court by various statutes, under authority given to Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in (28 U. S. C. §1251 et seq.), and various special statutes.
The rule making power of SCOTUS is conferred from time to time by Congress and gives SCOTUS the power to prescribe rules of procedure to be followed by the lower courts in the US (See 28 U. S. C. §2071 et seq.).
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/'The Tradesman'
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #14 Part 2
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
Usurpation (Supreme Court Rulings Examined)
We all know that since the beginning of our Nation there have been maneuverings and fights between the Federalist ( the ones who originally wanted a Monarchy and reduced their desires to that of a strong all-encompassing central government in effect a Monarchy with elected instead of hereditary rulers) and the Anti-Federalists (they were the contemporaries of the Founders and staunchly opposed the ratification of the Constitution, warned against the dangers of tyranny that could happen because of the weaknesses within the proposed Constitution that it did not adequately address itself against. Their major claim to fame was the addition of the bill of rights even though they did not get everything passed that they deemed necessary to protect the Fledgling Republic. Some of those dangers they warned against are coming to pass in our generation). Because of space limitations here I will not attempt to produce the chronology of the Pro and Anti Federalist papers and how they related to the events unfolding then. You can examine them at your leisure at; http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm, and a listing of the Anti-Federalist Papers selected and edited by Morton Borden at; http://www.constitution.org/afp/borden00.htm . With those items as a basis let’s dig into some of the glaring usurpations.
I want to start with the Supreme Court as it was supposed to be detailed in the Constitution and empowered by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The judiciary Act was Constitutional because it was required to set up a Supreme Court by order of Constitutional Law requirements. The Founders being well educated men did know that they needed to clearly define and circumscribe limits to its powers. The Judiciary Act was what they came up with. Read it in its entirety at; (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm ). Since then the Supreme Court as well as the rest of the Federal Government has surreptitiously expanded their Constitutional roles without benefit of amendments to the Constitution empowering them to do so.
throughout American History from its inception, the Supreme Court has shaped the scope, limits, and extent of Governmental Power. Through some of their decisions they have expanded their powers beyond the Constitutional ones allowed them in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This has been an ongoing experience for the Court and the American Public as well. Decisions like Marbury vs. Madison which extended judicial review by the court beyond what it was originally endowed with. The controversy was started by the judiciary Act of 1801 that modified the original 1789 act. It was known as the Midnight appointments act (appointments in the lame duck session between the end of Federalist Adams term and Anti-Federalist Jefferson's term.
Similar to the lame duck session by the new Federalists we call Democrats now and the affordable care act they passed in lame duck session) that among other things reorganized the Circuit Courts from three to six and created three new judgeship's for the circuits except the sixth which received one. It created lifetime posts for federalist judges. The Marbury vs. Madison (5 U.S. 137 (1803)) case was centered on one of these 'Midnight Appointments'. William Marbury petitioned the new Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus which is a Court order to force someone in this case James Madison the Secretary of State to issue Marbury's commission that was authorized by Adams. John Marshall the fourth Chief Justice also appointed by Adams found Madison's refusal to present the commission was illegal and remediable. The Court instead stopped short of compelling Madison by writ of mandamus, instead holding to the Judiciary act of 1789 which enabled Marbury to bring his claim, was in itself Unconstitutional since it acted to extend the court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article 3 established. Doing that extended the Supreme Court's judicial review powers.
The actual expansion through the auspices of Marbury is Unconstitutional by way of hearing cases wherein Constitutionality of a Federal Law or regulation is challenged. This process is Judicial Review. Everyone seems to forget when the States drafted the Constitution and it was ratified, they did NOT delegate such a power to the Supreme Court or to any branch of the Federal Government. Since this power of Judiciary Review is not expressly delegated to the Federal Government it is therefore reserved to the States or to the people themselves per the 10th Amendment. Therefore all the cases where the Supreme Court has ruled using judicial review are in themselves Unconstitutional.
McCullough vs. Maryland
In this case John Marshal again handed down through the Supreme Court another landmark decision and one of his most important decisions on expanding Federal Legislative Power. You can review the particulars of the case at;
(http://cases.laws.com/mcculloch-v-maryland) and at
(http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=21) Jefferson's rebuttal opinion on the Constitutionality of a national Bank 1791 can be reviewed at;
(http://www.constitution.org/mon/tj-bank.htm): these links juxtapose the differences between the Constitutionalists personified by Jefferson as the quintessential Anti-Federalist, and Marshal as the quintessential Expansionist Federalist.
Another bizarre case where executive powers were expanded by a Supreme Court ruling (citing article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution) beyond the Enumerated Powers granted to the President was In re Neagle where the ruling by the Supreme Court expanded the powers of the President, extended the Jurisdictional authority of Federal Marshals in effect granting them the same powers in executing the law as Sheriff's and their deputies have by law in their respective States. It also dwelt on expanding the authority of the Attorney General. The laws the Court applied were; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Statutes_of_the_United_States and the other pertinent information can be fully viewed at the following locations; http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Neagle
and http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0135_0001_ZS.html
Another case where a supreme Court Ruling expanded the powers of the President and the Federal government was the Prize Cases 67 U.S. 635 (1862) the rulings expanded the powers to create the right in question and other belligerent rights against Neutrals. See the full information for the case and syllabus at: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/case.html
EX parte Quirin from 1942
In this case the Supreme Court ruling facilitated it's judicial review and other expansions of Presidential power through its ruling on both a Congressional authority and a Presidential edict. 8 men (German Spies) were sentenced to Military Tribunal for their activities during wartime. The Court affirmed the right of Congress to sentence (a clear usurpation of the Constitutional Judiciary power) those who broke the laws of war to military tribunal because they were not in the uniform of the enemy and were acting as civilians while hiding explosive devices to damage US infrastructures, and were guilty of that act. It also rubber stamped a statement by FDR officially suspending court rights and subjecting all spies caught of warring nations to military tribunal. FDR's statement was “All persons who are subjects... of any nation at war with the United States... and are charged with committing or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage... shall be subject to the laws of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals.”
Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (2004)
In a more current case a ruling by the Supreme Court seemingly overturned Constitutional Protections of the 5th and 14th Amendments for American Citizens. A Habeas petition was filed on his behalf under ( 28 U. S. C. §2241 ) and the government was holding him in violation of those amendments.
See full information on the case at; http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html and the further expansions of Unconstitutional Governmental actions through the Patriot act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.3162 ) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act)
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/'The Tradesman'
Usurpation (Supreme Court Rulings Examined)
We all know that since the beginning of our Nation there have been maneuverings and fights between the Federalist ( the ones who originally wanted a Monarchy and reduced their desires to that of a strong all-encompassing central government in effect a Monarchy with elected instead of hereditary rulers) and the Anti-Federalists (they were the contemporaries of the Founders and staunchly opposed the ratification of the Constitution, warned against the dangers of tyranny that could happen because of the weaknesses within the proposed Constitution that it did not adequately address itself against. Their major claim to fame was the addition of the bill of rights even though they did not get everything passed that they deemed necessary to protect the Fledgling Republic. Some of those dangers they warned against are coming to pass in our generation). Because of space limitations here I will not attempt to produce the chronology of the Pro and Anti Federalist papers and how they related to the events unfolding then. You can examine them at your leisure at; http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm, and a listing of the Anti-Federalist Papers selected and edited by Morton Borden at; http://www.constitution.org/afp/borden00.htm . With those items as a basis let’s dig into some of the glaring usurpations.
I want to start with the Supreme Court as it was supposed to be detailed in the Constitution and empowered by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The judiciary Act was Constitutional because it was required to set up a Supreme Court by order of Constitutional Law requirements. The Founders being well educated men did know that they needed to clearly define and circumscribe limits to its powers. The Judiciary Act was what they came up with. Read it in its entirety at; (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm ). Since then the Supreme Court as well as the rest of the Federal Government has surreptitiously expanded their Constitutional roles without benefit of amendments to the Constitution empowering them to do so.
throughout American History from its inception, the Supreme Court has shaped the scope, limits, and extent of Governmental Power. Through some of their decisions they have expanded their powers beyond the Constitutional ones allowed them in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This has been an ongoing experience for the Court and the American Public as well. Decisions like Marbury vs. Madison which extended judicial review by the court beyond what it was originally endowed with. The controversy was started by the judiciary Act of 1801 that modified the original 1789 act. It was known as the Midnight appointments act (appointments in the lame duck session between the end of Federalist Adams term and Anti-Federalist Jefferson's term.
Similar to the lame duck session by the new Federalists we call Democrats now and the affordable care act they passed in lame duck session) that among other things reorganized the Circuit Courts from three to six and created three new judgeship's for the circuits except the sixth which received one. It created lifetime posts for federalist judges. The Marbury vs. Madison (5 U.S. 137 (1803)) case was centered on one of these 'Midnight Appointments'. William Marbury petitioned the new Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus which is a Court order to force someone in this case James Madison the Secretary of State to issue Marbury's commission that was authorized by Adams. John Marshall the fourth Chief Justice also appointed by Adams found Madison's refusal to present the commission was illegal and remediable. The Court instead stopped short of compelling Madison by writ of mandamus, instead holding to the Judiciary act of 1789 which enabled Marbury to bring his claim, was in itself Unconstitutional since it acted to extend the court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article 3 established. Doing that extended the Supreme Court's judicial review powers.
The actual expansion through the auspices of Marbury is Unconstitutional by way of hearing cases wherein Constitutionality of a Federal Law or regulation is challenged. This process is Judicial Review. Everyone seems to forget when the States drafted the Constitution and it was ratified, they did NOT delegate such a power to the Supreme Court or to any branch of the Federal Government. Since this power of Judiciary Review is not expressly delegated to the Federal Government it is therefore reserved to the States or to the people themselves per the 10th Amendment. Therefore all the cases where the Supreme Court has ruled using judicial review are in themselves Unconstitutional.
McCullough vs. Maryland
In this case John Marshal again handed down through the Supreme Court another landmark decision and one of his most important decisions on expanding Federal Legislative Power. You can review the particulars of the case at;
(http://cases.laws.com/mcculloch-v-maryland) and at
(http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=21) Jefferson's rebuttal opinion on the Constitutionality of a national Bank 1791 can be reviewed at;
(http://www.constitution.org/mon/tj-bank.htm): these links juxtapose the differences between the Constitutionalists personified by Jefferson as the quintessential Anti-Federalist, and Marshal as the quintessential Expansionist Federalist.
Another bizarre case where executive powers were expanded by a Supreme Court ruling (citing article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution) beyond the Enumerated Powers granted to the President was In re Neagle where the ruling by the Supreme Court expanded the powers of the President, extended the Jurisdictional authority of Federal Marshals in effect granting them the same powers in executing the law as Sheriff's and their deputies have by law in their respective States. It also dwelt on expanding the authority of the Attorney General. The laws the Court applied were; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Statutes_of_the_United_States and the other pertinent information can be fully viewed at the following locations; http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Neagle
and http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0135_0001_ZS.html
Another case where a supreme Court Ruling expanded the powers of the President and the Federal government was the Prize Cases 67 U.S. 635 (1862) the rulings expanded the powers to create the right in question and other belligerent rights against Neutrals. See the full information for the case and syllabus at: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/67/635/case.html
EX parte Quirin from 1942
In this case the Supreme Court ruling facilitated it's judicial review and other expansions of Presidential power through its ruling on both a Congressional authority and a Presidential edict. 8 men (German Spies) were sentenced to Military Tribunal for their activities during wartime. The Court affirmed the right of Congress to sentence (a clear usurpation of the Constitutional Judiciary power) those who broke the laws of war to military tribunal because they were not in the uniform of the enemy and were acting as civilians while hiding explosive devices to damage US infrastructures, and were guilty of that act. It also rubber stamped a statement by FDR officially suspending court rights and subjecting all spies caught of warring nations to military tribunal. FDR's statement was “All persons who are subjects... of any nation at war with the United States... and are charged with committing or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage... shall be subject to the laws of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals.”
Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (2004)
In a more current case a ruling by the Supreme Court seemingly overturned Constitutional Protections of the 5th and 14th Amendments for American Citizens. A Habeas petition was filed on his behalf under ( 28 U. S. C. §2241 ) and the government was holding him in violation of those amendments.
See full information on the case at; http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html and the further expansions of Unconstitutional Governmental actions through the Patriot act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.3162 ) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act)
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/'The Tradesman'
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #15 – Part 1
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
Three part series: The Responsibilities and the Duties of The American Citizens and States Sovereignty as told in two conversations, A Conversation With The Founders (Parts 1 and 2) and A Visit to The Pub (Part 3).
A CONVERSATION WITH THE FOUNDERS – Part 1
“He didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it.” ~ Clarence Budington Kelland
The hour is late, very late. Wrestling with every concern I have for this Nation, I wish, as I have wished so many times through the years of my study, that I could have a conversation with the Founders. I have carefully read and re-read their words of wisdom. As the years have numbered themselves, through this study I have grown close to these men and their actions and words. I have grown to the point of loving them -for their love of Country, loving them as my own, fathers of my Country-Fathers in my own heart.
Seeking to determine their meaning, I have researched their quotes and have placed them selectively before in previous writings. I have imagined myself with them, speaking of-fighting for-dreaming of, a future Nation they were willing to give their very lives to realize.
What it would have been like to live with them in their time? How I wish in 'this time' they could walk once again-larger than “life-saged” in their wisdom and counsel. I look at my door, how I wish they might walk through it. Sit down beside me and tell me what I must do-what I might say...that could cause the effect -again in this time-that they were able to achieve in their own.
And in that state of mind...a 'knock' at that door startles me. I am in a remote place, a dwelling of wonderful solitude and silence. Few visitors have ever knocked on my door, none-ever-at such a late hour. There is another rapid succession of knocks, as if there is someone on an errand of importance, beseeching me answer from the other side of my humble door. I hasten to it and slowly, cautiously, and warily open it and peer into the darkness... I am overwhelmed with awe and amazement at the sight that meets my eyes. Standing before me are Presidents George Washington, John Adams-James Madison- and Thomas Jefferson.
I stand aside and smile welcome to them as they step into my humble home. I bid them to please have a seat near the warmth and my gaze cannot leave their faces illuminated by brightness. This is a bitter winter’s night and I am sure that the cold has penetrated their coats and clothing. They nod in thanks, and take a seat on the rough-hewn-wooden bench that sits angled near the hearth. I too, take a seat and my hungry gaze drinks in their appearance, my heart beats hard in my grateful chest. I choke back tears of joy, for this is a dream fulfilled, to have these great men…the Founders, here...before me.
I hear the first words they speak. "For our Nation-these are our words-you have read them before-recited them-many times, written them as words in lines on paper. Do not have them considered in pieces or choose them to stand alone. Put them together, and have the People of America read them as a conversation...They are not just fragmented phrases and sentences they have context. Write them-and may they be read, as a 'completeness of story and a true expression of the complexity of our thinking and their true meaning understood as they were said.'
Each in their own turn they spoke.
Three part series: The Responsibilities and the Duties of The American Citizens and States Sovereignty as told in two conversations, A Conversation With The Founders (Parts 1 and 2) and A Visit to The Pub (Part 3).
A CONVERSATION WITH THE FOUNDERS – Part 1
“He didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it.” ~ Clarence Budington Kelland
The hour is late, very late. Wrestling with every concern I have for this Nation, I wish, as I have wished so many times through the years of my study, that I could have a conversation with the Founders. I have carefully read and re-read their words of wisdom. As the years have numbered themselves, through this study I have grown close to these men and their actions and words. I have grown to the point of loving them -for their love of Country, loving them as my own, fathers of my Country-Fathers in my own heart.
Seeking to determine their meaning, I have researched their quotes and have placed them selectively before in previous writings. I have imagined myself with them, speaking of-fighting for-dreaming of, a future Nation they were willing to give their very lives to realize.
What it would have been like to live with them in their time? How I wish in 'this time' they could walk once again-larger than “life-saged” in their wisdom and counsel. I look at my door, how I wish they might walk through it. Sit down beside me and tell me what I must do-what I might say...that could cause the effect -again in this time-that they were able to achieve in their own.
And in that state of mind...a 'knock' at that door startles me. I am in a remote place, a dwelling of wonderful solitude and silence. Few visitors have ever knocked on my door, none-ever-at such a late hour. There is another rapid succession of knocks, as if there is someone on an errand of importance, beseeching me answer from the other side of my humble door. I hasten to it and slowly, cautiously, and warily open it and peer into the darkness... I am overwhelmed with awe and amazement at the sight that meets my eyes. Standing before me are Presidents George Washington, John Adams-James Madison- and Thomas Jefferson.
I stand aside and smile welcome to them as they step into my humble home. I bid them to please have a seat near the warmth and my gaze cannot leave their faces illuminated by brightness. This is a bitter winter’s night and I am sure that the cold has penetrated their coats and clothing. They nod in thanks, and take a seat on the rough-hewn-wooden bench that sits angled near the hearth. I too, take a seat and my hungry gaze drinks in their appearance, my heart beats hard in my grateful chest. I choke back tears of joy, for this is a dream fulfilled, to have these great men…the Founders, here...before me.
I hear the first words they speak. "For our Nation-these are our words-you have read them before-recited them-many times, written them as words in lines on paper. Do not have them considered in pieces or choose them to stand alone. Put them together, and have the People of America read them as a conversation...They are not just fragmented phrases and sentences they have context. Write them-and may they be read, as a 'completeness of story and a true expression of the complexity of our thinking and their true meaning understood as they were said.'
Each in their own turn they spoke.
|
George Washington-our Nation's First President, the Father of our Country, stood straight and tall, towering above us , his noble head held high, his gaze falls upon each one of us as he speaks. His steely blue-gray eyes looking us full in the face, deliberate, deferential and engaging. His movements and gestures are graceful; his walk is majestic as he paces in front of the fireplace, placing special meaning on each word he speaks. "It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn. [1] |
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.[2]
No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.[3]
No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass.[4]
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.[5]
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party generally.... A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.[6]
The establishment of Civil and Religious Liberty was the Motive which induced me to the Field — the object is attained — and it now remains to be my earnest wish & prayer, that the Citizens of the United States could make a wise and virtuous use of the blessings placed before them.[7]
There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.[8]
We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our won Country's Honor, all call upon us for vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions.[9]
Can you then consent to be the only sufferers by this revolution, and retiring from the field, grow old in poverty, wretchedness and contempt? Can you consent to wade through the vile mire of dependency, and owe the miserable remnant of that life to charity, which has hitherto been spent in honor? If you can — GO — and carry with you the jest of tories and scorn of whigs — the ridicule, and what is worse, the pity of the world. Go, starve, and be forgotten! [10]
Our own Country's Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions — The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny mediated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for Liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.[11]
The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." [12]
Washington paused, then ceased speaking and bowed his head. As if saying a silent prayer, then in one fluid motion, took his seat and nodded to John Adams.
No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.[3]
No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass.[4]
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.[5]
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party generally.... A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.[6]
The establishment of Civil and Religious Liberty was the Motive which induced me to the Field — the object is attained — and it now remains to be my earnest wish & prayer, that the Citizens of the United States could make a wise and virtuous use of the blessings placed before them.[7]
There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.[8]
We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our won Country's Honor, all call upon us for vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions.[9]
Can you then consent to be the only sufferers by this revolution, and retiring from the field, grow old in poverty, wretchedness and contempt? Can you consent to wade through the vile mire of dependency, and owe the miserable remnant of that life to charity, which has hitherto been spent in honor? If you can — GO — and carry with you the jest of tories and scorn of whigs — the ridicule, and what is worse, the pity of the world. Go, starve, and be forgotten! [10]
Our own Country's Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions — The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny mediated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for Liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.[11]
The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." [12]
Washington paused, then ceased speaking and bowed his head. As if saying a silent prayer, then in one fluid motion, took his seat and nodded to John Adams.
|
John Adams, our 2nd president and United States Ambassador, who worked tirelessly, to secure financing for our New Nation spoke next. He chose to remain seated, with one hand resting on the shadowed arm of the bench, and the other he raised. Gesturing, as he spoke, his countenance commanding, as he directed his oration. Words tumbled from his mouth in rapid succession, his voice rising and falling; it is with great passion that he speaks of Revolution and the Republic.
"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. [1] |
|
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. [2]
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.[3]
Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it. [4]
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. [5]
Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the "latent spark"... If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference? [6]
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave. [7]
Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. [8]
Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. [9]
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. [10]
They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. [11]
[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." [12]
With a sigh and sad look on his face Adams spoke no more. He turned his gaze to James Madison.
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.[3]
Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it. [4]
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. [5]
Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the "latent spark"... If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference? [6]
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave. [7]
Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. [8]
Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. [9]
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. [10]
They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. [11]
[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." [12]
With a sigh and sad look on his face Adams spoke no more. He turned his gaze to James Madison.
|
The fire crackled and burned low, casting shadows about the room. James Madison, our 4th President and Gentleman instrumental to the language and inclusion of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, rose to his feet. Like Washington he chose to stand, with one hand on the fireplace mantel and the other in his coat pocket. With a direct and unwavering gaze he began, voice low and steady, then becoming louder as the emotion welled up in him. There was a fire that burned in his eyes as he spoke. We all sat transfixed.
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. [1] |
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. [2]
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. [3]
As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. [4]
As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought in all governments, and actually will in all free governments ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs, when the people stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow mediated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth, can regain their authority over the public mind? [5]
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another. [6]
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. [7]
Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. [8]
I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments. [9]
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. [10]
In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. [11]
Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. [12]
It becomes all therefore who are friends of a Government based on free principles to reflect, that by denying the possibility of a system partly federal and partly consolidated, and who would convert ours into one either wholly federal or wholly consolidated, in neither of which forms have individual rights, public order, and external safety, been all duly maintained, they aim a deadly blow at the last hope of true liberty on the face of the Earth. [13]
It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others. [14]
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. [15]
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. [16]
The house of representatives...can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. [17]
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. [18]
There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. [19]
There is not a more important and fundamental principle in legislation, than that the ways and means ought always to face the public engagements; that our appropriations should ever go hand in hand with our promises. To say that the United States should be answerable for twenty-five millions of dollars without knowing whether the ways and means can be provided, and without knowing whether those who are to succeed us will think with us on the subject, would be rash and unjustifiable. Sir, in my opinion, it would be hazarding the public faith in a manner contrary to every idea of prudence. [20]
What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them...the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. [21]
What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual & surest support? [22]
Whatever may be the judgment pronounced on the competency of the architects of the Constitution, or whatever may be the destiny of the edifice prepared by them, I feel it a duty to express my profound and solemn conviction ... that there never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them. [23]
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. [24]
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. [25]
[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. [26]
[I]t is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. [27]
[I]n the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained. [28]
[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."[29]
Madison glances at each of us with a weary smile and then he takes his seat and gestures that it now Jefferson’s turn.
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. [3]
As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. [4]
As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought in all governments, and actually will in all free governments ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs, when the people stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow mediated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth, can regain their authority over the public mind? [5]
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another. [6]
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. [7]
Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. [8]
I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments. [9]
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. [10]
In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. [11]
Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. [12]
It becomes all therefore who are friends of a Government based on free principles to reflect, that by denying the possibility of a system partly federal and partly consolidated, and who would convert ours into one either wholly federal or wholly consolidated, in neither of which forms have individual rights, public order, and external safety, been all duly maintained, they aim a deadly blow at the last hope of true liberty on the face of the Earth. [13]
It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others. [14]
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. [15]
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. [16]
The house of representatives...can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. [17]
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. [18]
There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. [19]
There is not a more important and fundamental principle in legislation, than that the ways and means ought always to face the public engagements; that our appropriations should ever go hand in hand with our promises. To say that the United States should be answerable for twenty-five millions of dollars without knowing whether the ways and means can be provided, and without knowing whether those who are to succeed us will think with us on the subject, would be rash and unjustifiable. Sir, in my opinion, it would be hazarding the public faith in a manner contrary to every idea of prudence. [20]
What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them...the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. [21]
What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual & surest support? [22]
Whatever may be the judgment pronounced on the competency of the architects of the Constitution, or whatever may be the destiny of the edifice prepared by them, I feel it a duty to express my profound and solemn conviction ... that there never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them. [23]
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. [24]
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. [25]
[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. [26]
[I]t is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. [27]
[I]n the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained. [28]
[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."[29]
Madison glances at each of us with a weary smile and then he takes his seat and gestures that it now Jefferson’s turn.
|
The fire now is dying down. The evening has deepened into the early hours of a morning. It is as if the air in this small room is tingling with energy, though the hour is late, and I know my visitors are weary. Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd President and author of The Declaration of Independence, is last, and in a voice that sometimes trembles with emotion and eyes that appear misty with unshed tears, he concludes. "A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. [1] A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. [2] |
|
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever. [3]
At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. [4]
But of all the views of this law none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. [5]
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves. [6]
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. [7]
History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. [8]
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition. [9]
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. [10]
I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power. [11]
I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. [12]
In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. [13]
It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. [14]
On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already? [15]
Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. [16]
One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation. [17]
The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. [18]
The construction applied...to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate Congress a power...ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument. [19]
The example of changing a constitution by assembling the wise men of the state, instead of assembling armies, will be worth as much to the world as the former examples we had given them. The constitution, too, which was the result of our deliberation, is unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men. [20]
The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. [21]
The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them. [22]
The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. [23]
The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government. [24]
The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind. [25]
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. [26]
To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts, in writing; To improve, by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor, and judgment; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed. [27]
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. [28]
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. [28]
[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. [30]
[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market. [31]
[T]o preserve the republican form and principles of our Constitution and cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [the Constitution] has established... are the two sheet anchors of our Union. If driven from either, we shall be in danger of foundering. [32]
W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another." [33]
At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. [4]
But of all the views of this law none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. [5]
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves. [6]
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. [7]
History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. [8]
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition. [9]
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. [10]
I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power. [11]
I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. [12]
In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. [13]
It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. [14]
On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already? [15]
Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. [16]
One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation. [17]
The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. [18]
The construction applied...to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate Congress a power...ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument. [19]
The example of changing a constitution by assembling the wise men of the state, instead of assembling armies, will be worth as much to the world as the former examples we had given them. The constitution, too, which was the result of our deliberation, is unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men. [20]
The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. [21]
The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them. [22]
The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. [23]
The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government. [24]
The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind. [25]
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. [26]
To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts, in writing; To improve, by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor, and judgment; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed. [27]
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. [28]
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. [28]
[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. [30]
[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market. [31]
[T]o preserve the republican form and principles of our Constitution and cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [the Constitution] has established... are the two sheet anchors of our Union. If driven from either, we shall be in danger of foundering. [32]
W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another." [33]
With reserve that was indicative of his time, George Washington then stepped toward me. His steely eyes were misty and his trembling voice was full of sadness and foreboding,
“The time is, near at hand, which must probably determine whether Americans will be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own…The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army …Let us therefore rely on the goodness of the cause and the aid of the Supreme Being, in whose hands victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.” [34]
I choked back tears and searched for words to speak, but words failed me. l knew in my heart, that I would be diligent and would remain true to the duty and responsibility of being a responsible citizen, a true patriot, of this great and much loved country. I have always respected that these great men, and many un-named humble men, who had also fought so hard and sacrificed so much to preserve our freedom. I would heed their words and warnings. I would not ignore their wisdom.
I bid them to please stay a bit longer, to instruct me further, toward the duty and responsibility of a patriot citizen. I rushed to put more wood on the fire for it was no more than glowing embers and offered them hot drink. They looked at each other and spoke in hushed tones between them, then in agreement they each took a seat. The fire took on new life as it leapt from dying embers to dancing-cracking flames. Cupping the steaming mug in hand, President Jefferson spoke his voice strong with emotion his tired eyes suddenly animated with emotion.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/Love of Country and lady boots
“The time is, near at hand, which must probably determine whether Americans will be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own…The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army …Let us therefore rely on the goodness of the cause and the aid of the Supreme Being, in whose hands victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble actions.” [34]
I choked back tears and searched for words to speak, but words failed me. l knew in my heart, that I would be diligent and would remain true to the duty and responsibility of being a responsible citizen, a true patriot, of this great and much loved country. I have always respected that these great men, and many un-named humble men, who had also fought so hard and sacrificed so much to preserve our freedom. I would heed their words and warnings. I would not ignore their wisdom.
I bid them to please stay a bit longer, to instruct me further, toward the duty and responsibility of a patriot citizen. I rushed to put more wood on the fire for it was no more than glowing embers and offered them hot drink. They looked at each other and spoke in hushed tones between them, then in agreement they each took a seat. The fire took on new life as it leapt from dying embers to dancing-cracking flames. Cupping the steaming mug in hand, President Jefferson spoke his voice strong with emotion his tired eyes suddenly animated with emotion.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/Love of Country and lady boots
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS 15 – Part 2
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
A CONVERSATION WITH THE FOUNDERS – Part 2
Concerning THE DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITIZEN
Let me say,
"Of all the views of this law none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people "THE SAFE", as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. [1]
History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. [2]
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves. [3]
To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts, in writing; To improve, by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor, and judgment; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed." [4]
Jefferson finished with a sigh and raised his cup to his lips to take a drink. In small voice, I asked if I might read to them papers in my possession that spoke to today's meaning of the responsibilities and duties of a citizen. Hesitant, I feared modern definition might distort the meaning of their words, and offend. To my relief, they nodded their approval and President Washington gestured with his hand and a slight nod of his silvery head, he gestured for me to begin.
I started in a voice hushed and low, but it became louder when I glanced up and saw their smiles of encouragement and their heads tilted forward with interest and anticipation.
The modern understanding of U.S. citizenship - It comes with both rights and responsibilities.
Citizenship in the United States of America is granted in one of two ways.
An individual born on American soil or in a foreign land to American parents is considered a citizen by birth. A foreign national, who wish to immigrate permanently, may apply for citizenship. Giving individuals the right to live and travel freely throughout the United States and its territories, citizenship to this country comes with duties and responsibilities.
Obeying Laws
American citizens must obey the law, or face a jury of their fellow citizens. Perhaps the most important duty of a citizen of the United States of America is to obey the law. There are many laws that govern the land. Each is administered by one of three jurisdictions: federal, state and municipal.
State laws are the rules and regulations that govern each of the 50 states. Each state, has it's own Constitution.
Federal laws uniformly govern the United States and its territories. These are created and administered by Congress and the President and enforced by the United States Supreme Court.
Taxes (And I see them all glance keenly with interest, TAXES, are a subject of particular interest. Taxes once began a war of Independence).
I mention a fellow Founding Father of the United States Benjamin Franklin, and he said, "In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." This statement rings true as the payment of federal taxes is a duty of each citizen. Each calendar year, every citizen must pay taxes on the income and gifts he has received, and failure to file an annual tax return is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
Jury Duty
American citizens must serve on a jury. When summoned, every citizen of the United States must serve, the only exception, in cases where performing jury duty would cause hardship to the individual, either financially or due to a health condition. All employers must allow the employee/citizen to serve on a jury if summoned.
Selective Service
All male citizens between 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service System. The Selective Service System is a government agency which has the power, by order of Congress and the President, to implement a military draft due to a national emergency, such as war or natural disaster. All male citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register with the agency. Failure to do so is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, up to five years imprisonment, or both. [5]
I paused and looked up briefly, I had heard hushed whispers as I read certain passages. The fire was roaring in the hearth now, sending flickering light dancing across their faces. Intent gazes meet my own, then President Washington smiled again, I was to continue and continue I did, my voice stronger, knowing they were happy to learn.
"Sir, I say nodding to President Jefferson, these are your words toward The Responsibility Of Citizens.”
"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature." [6]
"I have researched this Background and what it speaks toward the Original Intent of our Founding Document." I continue.
"A good constitution is the greatest blessing which a society can enjoy." So said James Wilson, in his oration at Philadelphia on July 4, 1788, celebrating the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. Wilson, who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, preached startlingly democratic theories - more democratic than the ideas of any other delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
Yet Wilson emphasized the duties, as well as the rights, of citizens:
"Need I infer, that it is the duty of every citizen to use his best and most unremitting endeavours for preserving it [the Constitution] pure, healthful, and vigorous? For the accomplishment of this great purpose, the exertions of no one citizen are unimportant. Let no one, therefore harbour, for a moment, the mean idea, that he is and can be of no value to his country: let the contrary manly impression animate his soul. Everyone can, at many times, perform, to the state, useful services; and he, who steadily pursues the road of patriotism, has the most inviting prospect of being able, at some times, to perform eminent ones."
Wilson's argument is quite as sound now as it was two centuries ago. The success of the American Republic as a political structure has been the consequence, in very large part, of the voluntary participation of citizens in public affairs - enlisting in the army in time of war; serving on school boards; taking part unpaid in political campaigns; petitioning legislatures; supporting the President in an hour of crisis; and in a hundred other great ways, or small-assuming responsibility for the common good. The Constitution has functioned well, most of the time, because conscientious men and women have given it flesh.
The Premises of Americans' Responsibility Under the Constitution of 1787
The Framers' first assumption was that all just authority for government comes from the people, under God; not from a monarch or a governing class, but from the innumerable citizens who make up the public. The people delegate to government only so much power as they think it prudent for government to exercise. Government is the people's creation, not their master. Thus, if the people are sovereign, it is the citizens' responsibility to take upon their shoulders the task of seeing that order, justice, and freedom are maintained.
The Framers' second assumption was that American citizens would undertake responsibility for the ordinary functioning of the civil social order and those local communities would manage their own affairs. Under their system, the roles of the various levels of government would be minimal and would not unnecessarily intrude into the day-to-day lives of the citizens.
In the matters which most immediately affect private life, power should remain in the hands of the citizens, or of the several states - not in the possession of federal government. So, at least, the Constitution declares. Americans have no official cards of identity, or internal passports, or system of national registration of all citizens - obligations imposed upon citizens in much of the rest of the world. This freedom results from Americans' voluntary assumption of responsibility.
In matters of public concern, it was the original intent to keep authority as close to home as possible. The lesser courts, the police, the maintenance of roads and sanitation, the levying of real-property taxes, the control of public schools, and many other essential functions still are carried on by the agencies of local community: the township, the village, the city, the county, the voluntary association. Citizens' cooperation in voluntary community throughout the United States has been noted and commended in the books of Alexis de Tocqueville, Lord Bryce, Julian Marias, and other distinguished visitors to the United States, over the past two centuries.
America's citizens, most of them, have believed in a moral order ordained by divine wisdom; and so they have assumed moral responsibilities, including personal responsibility for constitutional government. The more thoughtful citizens have seen society as primarily moral in origin: a community of souls. Behind the outward forms of American political structure lie the old convictions that citizens have duties toward a Creator and toward other members of the society, and that a just government must recognize moral law.
In family, church, and school, until the middle of the twentieth century, the rising generation of Americans were taught that they must be personally responsible for their own welfare, for the care of their aging family members, for the security and prosperity of their community, for their patrimony of order and justice and freedom, A sense of responsibility is developed by severe lessons, by private risk and accountability, by a humane education, by religious understanding, by knowledge of the past. Once upon a time, this sense of responsibility was diffused throughout the American nation. If it drains away, the consequences will be dreary.
A republic whose citizens - whose leaders, indeed - are concerned chiefly with "looking out for Number One," and ignoring their responsibilities of citizenship, soon cannot "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" - or carry on the other major duties of the state. When the crisis comes, the people may turn in desperation to the hero-administrator, the misty figure somewhere at the summit. But in the end, that hero administrator will not save the republic, although he may govern for a time by force. A democratic republic cannot long endure unless a great many of its citizens stand ready and willing to brighten the corner where they are, and to sacrifice much for the nation, if need be.
I pause for just a moment, they are quiet in their consideration, and we all wait for what I will continue to read, wait for the question that has brought us together this night.
Has The Consciousness of Responsibility Withered in America?
For the past five or six decades, several perceptive observers have remarked, an increasing proportion of the American population has ceased to feel responsible for the common defense, for productive work, for choosing able men and women to represent them in politics, for accepting personal responsibility for the needs of the community, or even for their own livelihood. Unless this deterioration is arrested, the responsible citizens will be too few to support and protect the irresponsible. By 1978 there were more people receiving regular government checks than there were workers in the private sector.
What follows, if we are to judge by the history of fallen civilizations, is described by Albert Jay Nock in his book Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943):
"... closer centralization; a steadily growing bureaucracy; State power and faith in State power increasing; social power and faith in social power diminishing; the State absorbing a continually larger proportion of the national income; production languishing; the State in consequence taking over one 'essential industry' after another, managing them with ever-increasing corruption, inefficiency, and prodigality, and finally resorting to a system of forced labor. Then at some point in this process a collision of State interests, at least as general and as violent as that which occurred in 1914, will result in an industrial and financial dislocation too severe for the asthenic [weak] social structure to bear; and from this the State will be left to 'the rusty death of machinery' and the casual anonymous forces of dissolution."
Modem civilization offers a great variety of diversions, amusements, and enticements - some of them baneful. But modem civilization does not offer many inducements to the performance of duties, except perhaps monetary payment, and certainly it does not teach people that the real reward for responsible citizenship is the preservation of a free society.
It is not money that can induce citizens to labor and sacrifice for the common good. They must be moved by patriotism and their attachment to the Constitution. And patriotism alone, ignorant boasting about ones’ native land, would not suffice to preserve the Republic.
....A mighty effort ought to be made to restore the American public's awareness of the principles of their government, of their responsibilities toward their country, their neighbors, their children, their parents, and themselves to be sure that their patriotism is based on this solid foundation. No one knows how late the hour is; but it is later than most people think. Love of the Republic shelters all our other loves; and that love is worth some sacrifice.
This time when I look up, the sadness in my voice is reflected in their faces.
Responsibilities Are Readily Forgotten
Nearly all of us are quick to claim benefits, but not everybody is eager to fulfill obligations. We have become a nation obsessed with rights, forgetful of responsibilities. In an age of seeming affluence, a great many people find it easy to forget that all good things must be paid for by somebody or other - paid for through hard work, through painful abstinence, sometimes through bitter sacrifice. Below we set down some of the causes for the decline of a sense of responsibility among some American citizens.
The growth of an American welfare state, over the past half-century, has produced in the minds of a good many men and women the illusion that somehow somebody in Washington can provide for all needs: so why make much effort to fulfill what used to be considered personal responsibilities? As Alexis de Tocqueville remarked, a century and a half ago:
"Democracy in the United States will endure until those in power learn that they can perpetuate themselves through taxation."
In other words, the temptation of public men in Washington is always to offer to have the federal government assume fresh responsibilities - with consequent decay of local and private vigor (it might be argued that, at least in part, a failure in the proper exercise of citizens' responsibility permitted the development of the welfare state syndrome - that the government owes them a living. In any event, once it got under way and the welfare state grew, the sense of citizens' responsibility and rugged individualism deteriorated).
The increase of the scale of society and the size of government has bewildered many Americans, inclining them to think that the individual can accomplish little or nothing in a responsible way, engulfed as he seems to be by the “over-whelmingness” of it all. It was easier to see one’s personal responsibility in a Massachusetts township or next door to a Virginia courthouse, in 1787, than it is to perceive what one's duties to country and community may be in the New York or Los Angeles of 1987. When one contemplates the enormous size of the federal government, then the exercise of individual citizen responsibility seems almost hopeless.
Until the 1930s, and in many schools later than that, young people learned their responsibilities through the lively study of history, government, and especially imaginative literature that taught them about human dignity and human duties. But in recent decades, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, the disciplines of history and government have been supplanted by a vague social stew." In addition,” the study of great literature and philosophical ideas has given way to anthologies of relevant" - and often depressing third-rate recent writing. So the function of the schools as places where responsibility would be taught - an expressed hope of several of the Framers of the Constitution, John Dickinson among them - has been ignored.
Of all social institutions, formerly the family was most active and successful in teaching young people their responsibilities. But since the Second World War particularly, the American family has been weakened by economic changes, both parents being gainfully employed (often to pay for increases of taxation, in large part), the triumph of the television set over family conversations, the influence of periodicals read by young people, and a considerable range of challenges to parental authority - many times encouraged by judicial decisions and actions of the education establishment. At the same time, the influence of school teachers and of the clergy in perpetuating this strong sense of responsibility has diminished. So, in some degree, the restoration of a sense of responsibility depends upon the family's recovery of authority.
The fundamental impulse to accept responsibilities and perform duties, in every society, has been religious in origin. Individuals obey moral laws and do their duty because of awareness of duties toward God. Religion teaches that there exist natural laws; and that if individuals try to ignore those natural laws, they find themselves in peril, individually and as a society. People who deny the reality of the Divine tend to shrug off their responsibilities to other men and women. Thus, weakness in religious awareness commonly leads to the decay of personal responsibility in many walks of life.
These are only some of the reasons why a 'permissive" society speaks often of rights and seldom of responsibilities. A time comes, in the course of events, when abruptly there is a most urgent need for men and women ready to fulfill high and exacting and dangerous responsibilities. And if there are no such citizens, then liberty can be lost. It must be remembered that the great strength of the Signers of the Declaration and the Framers of the Constitution was that they knew their classical history, and how the ancient Greek cities had lost their liberties, and how the Roman system had sunk to its ruin under the weight of proletariat and military state. [7]
Their eyes met each other's, they turned to mine. I had just told them a great part of the story of one of America's decline. The decline being the voluntary decay from self-reliance and pride, to entitlement and chosen indenture. In an apologetic tone I offer, 'Not all have chosen to accept such condition or attitude...I found this article - it speaks beyond the dependent expectation of some citizens, it addresses modern citizen responsibility.'
An American Bill of Responsibilities (an opinion by Judith H. Rose)
*Fifteen years after the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States, the amendments known as the Bill of Rights were ratified. These inspired men believed in a balance between citizen responsibilities and citizen rights. They knew that an emphasis only on rights would inevitably lead to self-interest and anarchy. They also knew that without this balance our nation could not endure. It is time to restore that balance. If they could counsel us today, the Founding Fathers might suggest the following Bill of Responsibilities:
*You have the responsibility to be a loyal citizen of the United States of America and to expect the same of every other citizen or immigrant to this great land. You have the responsibility to honor the flag and everything she stands for, and to pledge your allegiance to your country.
*Accepting citizenship means that you are, first and foremost, an American, not a hyphenated American or an expatriate of another country who is here solely for economic advantage. While you do not need to agree with every law that is passed, you do have the obligation to obey the law and work through peaceful means to achieve change. Further, for as long as you are living in this great country that continues to guarantee more freedom to its citizens than any other, you have the obligation to be grateful for the blessing of living in such a land. In America you have the freedom to leave at any time, should you be dissatisfied. No permission is needed.
*You have the responsibility to speak up when the criminal or legislative actions of any persons threaten the welfare of your family or your nation. It is not someone else's responsibility to blow the whistle; it is yours. "They" should not do something about the problems. You are "they." It takes courage and time to stand up against evil and destructive forces, but if you do not do it, who will?
*You have the responsibility to consider the welfare of ALL the citizens of the United States of America, even if it requires some personal sacrifice. The nation cannot survive the promulgation of narrow self-interest, be it of the individual, the community, or the state. As long as you judge every law or solution to a problem solely by how it affects you or your surroundings, rather than the country as a whole, there will be no real answers, nor can America remain great.
*You have the responsibility to support yourself and your own immediate and extended family. Being self-sustaining, providing for your own family, and helping your neighbor to the extent possible are requisite for a healthy economy and society. No society can flourish when a sizable number of its citizens expect to do nothing while accepting a government dole. Reliance on government entities inevitably destroys individual self-respect and the economic well-being of both citizen and state. If you take care of yourself and family, and the community picks up the slack, this nation will have one-third more funds for worthwhile projects and both you and this nation will become strong and resilient.
*You have the responsibility to make a difference in the lives of your family, your community, and your nation. As a good citizen you are here to make a contribution to this country. America has always been in the forefront in medical advances, scientific research, humanitarianism, and other areas. You have the responsibility to continue this tradition through hard work and good use of your time. You have the responsibility to bypass excuses of race, economic standing, and victimization of any kind because, no matter which excuse you choose, someone has successfully overcome it.
*You have the responsibility to be educated and informed. A public education is not enough. Finding truth is a challenging lifetime task that you must pursue diligently. You have the responsibility to seek truth from many sources. You must question what you read in any publication or listen to in any media report and be willing to consider all sides of any question. You must realize that such a quest for truth will take a tremendous effort to seek it out. The truth is not revealed unless actively sought.
*You have the responsibility to use wisdom in selecting those who will lead you. You must learn to seek men of good character, not those with only charisma or a handsome face. You must become a connoisseur of character rather than a pawn of a salient slogan. You must remember that character is never outdated. A man or woman with no self-control should never be trusted with the welfare of our great country. You must never tolerate leaders who are untruthful, deceitful, or seek to exercise power rather than give service.
*You have the responsibility to value and defend human life. Quality of life considerations, age, or handicaps do not in any way lessen the value of life itself. Any life taken by mankind before its time cheapens the life of every other American. You also have the responsibility to educate those who would degrade human life by considering it, at best, equal to or even lower than animal life.
*You have the responsibility to honor your freedom of worship and to defend that right for every citizen in this country. We, your Founding Fathers valued religion highly and depended entirely upon God for the inspiration and help needed to form this union. We expect no less of you. - Judith H. Rose [8]
The responsibility and the duty to vote, but for what policy and for whom? General Washington, you counseled, speaking toward the qualities of the servant of the people that we should look to elect:
"No compact among men... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." [9]
My reading of the lengthy article found its conclusion, and before I could ask their opinion of what I had read, President Madison rose to his feet and spoke.
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. [10]
As a man is said to have A RIGHT TO HIS PROPERTY, he may be equally said to have A PROPERTY IN HIS RIGHTS. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort, is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. [11]
President Adams came to his side, and placed a hand fondly on his shoulder. Speaking to me he added, “saged” wisdom, spoken with dedication and confidence.
“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.” “Power must never be trusted without a check.” “Always stand on principle....even if you stand alone. [12]
To put final emphasis on the solemn mood of our meeting - the importance of their visit - the value that should be placed on the circumstance of this conversation, President Jefferson is the last to express a final thought.
We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. [13]
This will, to you, be as one from the dead. The writer will be in the grave before you can weigh its counsels. Your affectionate and excellent father has requested that I would address to you something which might possibly have a favorable influence on the course of life you have to run; and I too, as a namesake, feel an interest in that course. Few words will be necessary, with good dispositions on your part. Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence. So shall the life into which you have entered be the portal to one of eternal and ineffable bliss. And if to the dead it is permitted to care for the things of this world, every action of your life will be under my regard. Farewell.[14]
Then they all stood, they smiled with tired conclusion, conveying an affection and a satisfaction that they had accomplished what they had intended. Hats in hand and coats snugly buckled, they turned at the door to look me full in the face. Their visages conveyed the words they did not say, 'We have done all we can, it is now up to you-and others like you… to keep the Republic free. '
There was so much I wanted to say in that last moment of farewell, send them on their way with an assurance that I could not honestly give, THE REPUBLIC WILL BE RESTORED... But...in the next moment the filmy-white mist of time enveloped them and they were gone…..I was left standing alone by a fire that was no more than glowing-dying embers, the energy was gone from the room and it suddenly felt strangely stark and barren.
In the embers glow, I complete my writing and look at the final sentence. I have sat in this quiet place alone before. My mind filled with the thoughts a father, my own fathers - had given to me before they left. Words that find a place and a home in your soul. I have lived – loved - learned a lifetime in the environment of their influence. I have buried them both.
The Founders have returned to the Ages. My Founding Fathers. That is the answer to the disconnect we suffer from in our Nation, if disconnect is indeed what we are to blame. We must Love this Nation's history like it is our own, as it was and we had lived all of it. Love the Founding Fathers like our own, as though it were on their laps where we sat as children - where we were loved and taught. Love this Country...because it is our own, IT IS OURS TO KEEP OR LOSE. As Patriots we must stand guard to protect this country and never allow the flame of freedom to turn to dying embers. May God help us, in this time, as He did for those who lived so well before us, in their time. Amen.
A CONVERSATION WITH THE FOUNDERS – Part 2
Concerning THE DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITIZEN
Let me say,
"Of all the views of this law none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people "THE SAFE", as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. [1]
History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. [2]
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves. [3]
To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business; To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts, in writing; To improve, by reading, his morals and faculties; To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either; To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor, and judgment; And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed." [4]
Jefferson finished with a sigh and raised his cup to his lips to take a drink. In small voice, I asked if I might read to them papers in my possession that spoke to today's meaning of the responsibilities and duties of a citizen. Hesitant, I feared modern definition might distort the meaning of their words, and offend. To my relief, they nodded their approval and President Washington gestured with his hand and a slight nod of his silvery head, he gestured for me to begin.
I started in a voice hushed and low, but it became louder when I glanced up and saw their smiles of encouragement and their heads tilted forward with interest and anticipation.
The modern understanding of U.S. citizenship - It comes with both rights and responsibilities.
Citizenship in the United States of America is granted in one of two ways.
An individual born on American soil or in a foreign land to American parents is considered a citizen by birth. A foreign national, who wish to immigrate permanently, may apply for citizenship. Giving individuals the right to live and travel freely throughout the United States and its territories, citizenship to this country comes with duties and responsibilities.
Obeying Laws
American citizens must obey the law, or face a jury of their fellow citizens. Perhaps the most important duty of a citizen of the United States of America is to obey the law. There are many laws that govern the land. Each is administered by one of three jurisdictions: federal, state and municipal.
State laws are the rules and regulations that govern each of the 50 states. Each state, has it's own Constitution.
Federal laws uniformly govern the United States and its territories. These are created and administered by Congress and the President and enforced by the United States Supreme Court.
Taxes (And I see them all glance keenly with interest, TAXES, are a subject of particular interest. Taxes once began a war of Independence).
I mention a fellow Founding Father of the United States Benjamin Franklin, and he said, "In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." This statement rings true as the payment of federal taxes is a duty of each citizen. Each calendar year, every citizen must pay taxes on the income and gifts he has received, and failure to file an annual tax return is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
Jury Duty
American citizens must serve on a jury. When summoned, every citizen of the United States must serve, the only exception, in cases where performing jury duty would cause hardship to the individual, either financially or due to a health condition. All employers must allow the employee/citizen to serve on a jury if summoned.
Selective Service
All male citizens between 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service System. The Selective Service System is a government agency which has the power, by order of Congress and the President, to implement a military draft due to a national emergency, such as war or natural disaster. All male citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register with the agency. Failure to do so is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, up to five years imprisonment, or both. [5]
I paused and looked up briefly, I had heard hushed whispers as I read certain passages. The fire was roaring in the hearth now, sending flickering light dancing across their faces. Intent gazes meet my own, then President Washington smiled again, I was to continue and continue I did, my voice stronger, knowing they were happy to learn.
"Sir, I say nodding to President Jefferson, these are your words toward The Responsibility Of Citizens.”
"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature." [6]
"I have researched this Background and what it speaks toward the Original Intent of our Founding Document." I continue.
"A good constitution is the greatest blessing which a society can enjoy." So said James Wilson, in his oration at Philadelphia on July 4, 1788, celebrating the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. Wilson, who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, preached startlingly democratic theories - more democratic than the ideas of any other delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
Yet Wilson emphasized the duties, as well as the rights, of citizens:
"Need I infer, that it is the duty of every citizen to use his best and most unremitting endeavours for preserving it [the Constitution] pure, healthful, and vigorous? For the accomplishment of this great purpose, the exertions of no one citizen are unimportant. Let no one, therefore harbour, for a moment, the mean idea, that he is and can be of no value to his country: let the contrary manly impression animate his soul. Everyone can, at many times, perform, to the state, useful services; and he, who steadily pursues the road of patriotism, has the most inviting prospect of being able, at some times, to perform eminent ones."
Wilson's argument is quite as sound now as it was two centuries ago. The success of the American Republic as a political structure has been the consequence, in very large part, of the voluntary participation of citizens in public affairs - enlisting in the army in time of war; serving on school boards; taking part unpaid in political campaigns; petitioning legislatures; supporting the President in an hour of crisis; and in a hundred other great ways, or small-assuming responsibility for the common good. The Constitution has functioned well, most of the time, because conscientious men and women have given it flesh.
The Premises of Americans' Responsibility Under the Constitution of 1787
The Framers' first assumption was that all just authority for government comes from the people, under God; not from a monarch or a governing class, but from the innumerable citizens who make up the public. The people delegate to government only so much power as they think it prudent for government to exercise. Government is the people's creation, not their master. Thus, if the people are sovereign, it is the citizens' responsibility to take upon their shoulders the task of seeing that order, justice, and freedom are maintained.
The Framers' second assumption was that American citizens would undertake responsibility for the ordinary functioning of the civil social order and those local communities would manage their own affairs. Under their system, the roles of the various levels of government would be minimal and would not unnecessarily intrude into the day-to-day lives of the citizens.
In the matters which most immediately affect private life, power should remain in the hands of the citizens, or of the several states - not in the possession of federal government. So, at least, the Constitution declares. Americans have no official cards of identity, or internal passports, or system of national registration of all citizens - obligations imposed upon citizens in much of the rest of the world. This freedom results from Americans' voluntary assumption of responsibility.
In matters of public concern, it was the original intent to keep authority as close to home as possible. The lesser courts, the police, the maintenance of roads and sanitation, the levying of real-property taxes, the control of public schools, and many other essential functions still are carried on by the agencies of local community: the township, the village, the city, the county, the voluntary association. Citizens' cooperation in voluntary community throughout the United States has been noted and commended in the books of Alexis de Tocqueville, Lord Bryce, Julian Marias, and other distinguished visitors to the United States, over the past two centuries.
America's citizens, most of them, have believed in a moral order ordained by divine wisdom; and so they have assumed moral responsibilities, including personal responsibility for constitutional government. The more thoughtful citizens have seen society as primarily moral in origin: a community of souls. Behind the outward forms of American political structure lie the old convictions that citizens have duties toward a Creator and toward other members of the society, and that a just government must recognize moral law.
In family, church, and school, until the middle of the twentieth century, the rising generation of Americans were taught that they must be personally responsible for their own welfare, for the care of their aging family members, for the security and prosperity of their community, for their patrimony of order and justice and freedom, A sense of responsibility is developed by severe lessons, by private risk and accountability, by a humane education, by religious understanding, by knowledge of the past. Once upon a time, this sense of responsibility was diffused throughout the American nation. If it drains away, the consequences will be dreary.
A republic whose citizens - whose leaders, indeed - are concerned chiefly with "looking out for Number One," and ignoring their responsibilities of citizenship, soon cannot "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" - or carry on the other major duties of the state. When the crisis comes, the people may turn in desperation to the hero-administrator, the misty figure somewhere at the summit. But in the end, that hero administrator will not save the republic, although he may govern for a time by force. A democratic republic cannot long endure unless a great many of its citizens stand ready and willing to brighten the corner where they are, and to sacrifice much for the nation, if need be.
I pause for just a moment, they are quiet in their consideration, and we all wait for what I will continue to read, wait for the question that has brought us together this night.
Has The Consciousness of Responsibility Withered in America?
For the past five or six decades, several perceptive observers have remarked, an increasing proportion of the American population has ceased to feel responsible for the common defense, for productive work, for choosing able men and women to represent them in politics, for accepting personal responsibility for the needs of the community, or even for their own livelihood. Unless this deterioration is arrested, the responsible citizens will be too few to support and protect the irresponsible. By 1978 there were more people receiving regular government checks than there were workers in the private sector.
What follows, if we are to judge by the history of fallen civilizations, is described by Albert Jay Nock in his book Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943):
"... closer centralization; a steadily growing bureaucracy; State power and faith in State power increasing; social power and faith in social power diminishing; the State absorbing a continually larger proportion of the national income; production languishing; the State in consequence taking over one 'essential industry' after another, managing them with ever-increasing corruption, inefficiency, and prodigality, and finally resorting to a system of forced labor. Then at some point in this process a collision of State interests, at least as general and as violent as that which occurred in 1914, will result in an industrial and financial dislocation too severe for the asthenic [weak] social structure to bear; and from this the State will be left to 'the rusty death of machinery' and the casual anonymous forces of dissolution."
Modem civilization offers a great variety of diversions, amusements, and enticements - some of them baneful. But modem civilization does not offer many inducements to the performance of duties, except perhaps monetary payment, and certainly it does not teach people that the real reward for responsible citizenship is the preservation of a free society.
It is not money that can induce citizens to labor and sacrifice for the common good. They must be moved by patriotism and their attachment to the Constitution. And patriotism alone, ignorant boasting about ones’ native land, would not suffice to preserve the Republic.
....A mighty effort ought to be made to restore the American public's awareness of the principles of their government, of their responsibilities toward their country, their neighbors, their children, their parents, and themselves to be sure that their patriotism is based on this solid foundation. No one knows how late the hour is; but it is later than most people think. Love of the Republic shelters all our other loves; and that love is worth some sacrifice.
This time when I look up, the sadness in my voice is reflected in their faces.
Responsibilities Are Readily Forgotten
Nearly all of us are quick to claim benefits, but not everybody is eager to fulfill obligations. We have become a nation obsessed with rights, forgetful of responsibilities. In an age of seeming affluence, a great many people find it easy to forget that all good things must be paid for by somebody or other - paid for through hard work, through painful abstinence, sometimes through bitter sacrifice. Below we set down some of the causes for the decline of a sense of responsibility among some American citizens.
The growth of an American welfare state, over the past half-century, has produced in the minds of a good many men and women the illusion that somehow somebody in Washington can provide for all needs: so why make much effort to fulfill what used to be considered personal responsibilities? As Alexis de Tocqueville remarked, a century and a half ago:
"Democracy in the United States will endure until those in power learn that they can perpetuate themselves through taxation."
In other words, the temptation of public men in Washington is always to offer to have the federal government assume fresh responsibilities - with consequent decay of local and private vigor (it might be argued that, at least in part, a failure in the proper exercise of citizens' responsibility permitted the development of the welfare state syndrome - that the government owes them a living. In any event, once it got under way and the welfare state grew, the sense of citizens' responsibility and rugged individualism deteriorated).
The increase of the scale of society and the size of government has bewildered many Americans, inclining them to think that the individual can accomplish little or nothing in a responsible way, engulfed as he seems to be by the “over-whelmingness” of it all. It was easier to see one’s personal responsibility in a Massachusetts township or next door to a Virginia courthouse, in 1787, than it is to perceive what one's duties to country and community may be in the New York or Los Angeles of 1987. When one contemplates the enormous size of the federal government, then the exercise of individual citizen responsibility seems almost hopeless.
Until the 1930s, and in many schools later than that, young people learned their responsibilities through the lively study of history, government, and especially imaginative literature that taught them about human dignity and human duties. But in recent decades, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, the disciplines of history and government have been supplanted by a vague social stew." In addition,” the study of great literature and philosophical ideas has given way to anthologies of relevant" - and often depressing third-rate recent writing. So the function of the schools as places where responsibility would be taught - an expressed hope of several of the Framers of the Constitution, John Dickinson among them - has been ignored.
Of all social institutions, formerly the family was most active and successful in teaching young people their responsibilities. But since the Second World War particularly, the American family has been weakened by economic changes, both parents being gainfully employed (often to pay for increases of taxation, in large part), the triumph of the television set over family conversations, the influence of periodicals read by young people, and a considerable range of challenges to parental authority - many times encouraged by judicial decisions and actions of the education establishment. At the same time, the influence of school teachers and of the clergy in perpetuating this strong sense of responsibility has diminished. So, in some degree, the restoration of a sense of responsibility depends upon the family's recovery of authority.
The fundamental impulse to accept responsibilities and perform duties, in every society, has been religious in origin. Individuals obey moral laws and do their duty because of awareness of duties toward God. Religion teaches that there exist natural laws; and that if individuals try to ignore those natural laws, they find themselves in peril, individually and as a society. People who deny the reality of the Divine tend to shrug off their responsibilities to other men and women. Thus, weakness in religious awareness commonly leads to the decay of personal responsibility in many walks of life.
These are only some of the reasons why a 'permissive" society speaks often of rights and seldom of responsibilities. A time comes, in the course of events, when abruptly there is a most urgent need for men and women ready to fulfill high and exacting and dangerous responsibilities. And if there are no such citizens, then liberty can be lost. It must be remembered that the great strength of the Signers of the Declaration and the Framers of the Constitution was that they knew their classical history, and how the ancient Greek cities had lost their liberties, and how the Roman system had sunk to its ruin under the weight of proletariat and military state. [7]
Their eyes met each other's, they turned to mine. I had just told them a great part of the story of one of America's decline. The decline being the voluntary decay from self-reliance and pride, to entitlement and chosen indenture. In an apologetic tone I offer, 'Not all have chosen to accept such condition or attitude...I found this article - it speaks beyond the dependent expectation of some citizens, it addresses modern citizen responsibility.'
An American Bill of Responsibilities (an opinion by Judith H. Rose)
*Fifteen years after the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States, the amendments known as the Bill of Rights were ratified. These inspired men believed in a balance between citizen responsibilities and citizen rights. They knew that an emphasis only on rights would inevitably lead to self-interest and anarchy. They also knew that without this balance our nation could not endure. It is time to restore that balance. If they could counsel us today, the Founding Fathers might suggest the following Bill of Responsibilities:
*You have the responsibility to be a loyal citizen of the United States of America and to expect the same of every other citizen or immigrant to this great land. You have the responsibility to honor the flag and everything she stands for, and to pledge your allegiance to your country.
*Accepting citizenship means that you are, first and foremost, an American, not a hyphenated American or an expatriate of another country who is here solely for economic advantage. While you do not need to agree with every law that is passed, you do have the obligation to obey the law and work through peaceful means to achieve change. Further, for as long as you are living in this great country that continues to guarantee more freedom to its citizens than any other, you have the obligation to be grateful for the blessing of living in such a land. In America you have the freedom to leave at any time, should you be dissatisfied. No permission is needed.
*You have the responsibility to speak up when the criminal or legislative actions of any persons threaten the welfare of your family or your nation. It is not someone else's responsibility to blow the whistle; it is yours. "They" should not do something about the problems. You are "they." It takes courage and time to stand up against evil and destructive forces, but if you do not do it, who will?
*You have the responsibility to consider the welfare of ALL the citizens of the United States of America, even if it requires some personal sacrifice. The nation cannot survive the promulgation of narrow self-interest, be it of the individual, the community, or the state. As long as you judge every law or solution to a problem solely by how it affects you or your surroundings, rather than the country as a whole, there will be no real answers, nor can America remain great.
*You have the responsibility to support yourself and your own immediate and extended family. Being self-sustaining, providing for your own family, and helping your neighbor to the extent possible are requisite for a healthy economy and society. No society can flourish when a sizable number of its citizens expect to do nothing while accepting a government dole. Reliance on government entities inevitably destroys individual self-respect and the economic well-being of both citizen and state. If you take care of yourself and family, and the community picks up the slack, this nation will have one-third more funds for worthwhile projects and both you and this nation will become strong and resilient.
*You have the responsibility to make a difference in the lives of your family, your community, and your nation. As a good citizen you are here to make a contribution to this country. America has always been in the forefront in medical advances, scientific research, humanitarianism, and other areas. You have the responsibility to continue this tradition through hard work and good use of your time. You have the responsibility to bypass excuses of race, economic standing, and victimization of any kind because, no matter which excuse you choose, someone has successfully overcome it.
*You have the responsibility to be educated and informed. A public education is not enough. Finding truth is a challenging lifetime task that you must pursue diligently. You have the responsibility to seek truth from many sources. You must question what you read in any publication or listen to in any media report and be willing to consider all sides of any question. You must realize that such a quest for truth will take a tremendous effort to seek it out. The truth is not revealed unless actively sought.
*You have the responsibility to use wisdom in selecting those who will lead you. You must learn to seek men of good character, not those with only charisma or a handsome face. You must become a connoisseur of character rather than a pawn of a salient slogan. You must remember that character is never outdated. A man or woman with no self-control should never be trusted with the welfare of our great country. You must never tolerate leaders who are untruthful, deceitful, or seek to exercise power rather than give service.
*You have the responsibility to value and defend human life. Quality of life considerations, age, or handicaps do not in any way lessen the value of life itself. Any life taken by mankind before its time cheapens the life of every other American. You also have the responsibility to educate those who would degrade human life by considering it, at best, equal to or even lower than animal life.
*You have the responsibility to honor your freedom of worship and to defend that right for every citizen in this country. We, your Founding Fathers valued religion highly and depended entirely upon God for the inspiration and help needed to form this union. We expect no less of you. - Judith H. Rose [8]
The responsibility and the duty to vote, but for what policy and for whom? General Washington, you counseled, speaking toward the qualities of the servant of the people that we should look to elect:
"No compact among men... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." [9]
My reading of the lengthy article found its conclusion, and before I could ask their opinion of what I had read, President Madison rose to his feet and spoke.
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. [10]
As a man is said to have A RIGHT TO HIS PROPERTY, he may be equally said to have A PROPERTY IN HIS RIGHTS. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort, is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. [11]
President Adams came to his side, and placed a hand fondly on his shoulder. Speaking to me he added, “saged” wisdom, spoken with dedication and confidence.
“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.” “Power must never be trusted without a check.” “Always stand on principle....even if you stand alone. [12]
To put final emphasis on the solemn mood of our meeting - the importance of their visit - the value that should be placed on the circumstance of this conversation, President Jefferson is the last to express a final thought.
We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. [13]
This will, to you, be as one from the dead. The writer will be in the grave before you can weigh its counsels. Your affectionate and excellent father has requested that I would address to you something which might possibly have a favorable influence on the course of life you have to run; and I too, as a namesake, feel an interest in that course. Few words will be necessary, with good dispositions on your part. Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence. So shall the life into which you have entered be the portal to one of eternal and ineffable bliss. And if to the dead it is permitted to care for the things of this world, every action of your life will be under my regard. Farewell.[14]
Then they all stood, they smiled with tired conclusion, conveying an affection and a satisfaction that they had accomplished what they had intended. Hats in hand and coats snugly buckled, they turned at the door to look me full in the face. Their visages conveyed the words they did not say, 'We have done all we can, it is now up to you-and others like you… to keep the Republic free. '
There was so much I wanted to say in that last moment of farewell, send them on their way with an assurance that I could not honestly give, THE REPUBLIC WILL BE RESTORED... But...in the next moment the filmy-white mist of time enveloped them and they were gone…..I was left standing alone by a fire that was no more than glowing-dying embers, the energy was gone from the room and it suddenly felt strangely stark and barren.
In the embers glow, I complete my writing and look at the final sentence. I have sat in this quiet place alone before. My mind filled with the thoughts a father, my own fathers - had given to me before they left. Words that find a place and a home in your soul. I have lived – loved - learned a lifetime in the environment of their influence. I have buried them both.
The Founders have returned to the Ages. My Founding Fathers. That is the answer to the disconnect we suffer from in our Nation, if disconnect is indeed what we are to blame. We must Love this Nation's history like it is our own, as it was and we had lived all of it. Love the Founding Fathers like our own, as though it were on their laps where we sat as children - where we were loved and taught. Love this Country...because it is our own, IT IS OURS TO KEEP OR LOSE. As Patriots we must stand guard to protect this country and never allow the flame of freedom to turn to dying embers. May God help us, in this time, as He did for those who lived so well before us, in their time. Amen.
When Great Trees Fall
When great trees fall, *rocks on distant hills shudder, *lions hunker down,*in tall grasses, *and even elephants lumber after safety.
When great trees fall,*in forests, *small things recoil into silence, *their senses eroded beyond fear.
When great souls die, *the air around us becomes light,* rare, sterile. *We breathe, briefly. *Our eyes, briefly, *see with a hurtful clarity.
Our memory, *suddenly sharpened, *examines, *gnaws on kind words unsaid, *promised walks never taken.
Great souls die,* and our reality, *bound to them, *takes leave of us. *Our souls, *dependent upon their nurture, *now shrink, wizened.
Our minds, *formed and informed by their radiance, *fall away. *We are not so much maddened, as reduced, * to the unutterable ignorance of dark, cold caves.
And when great souls die, *after a period peace blooms, *slowly and always irregularly. *Spaces fill with a kind of soothing electric vibration.
Our senses, *restored, *never to be the same, *whisper to us. *They existed. *They existed. *We can be. *Be... and be better. *For they existed.
**Maya Angelou**
When great trees fall, *rocks on distant hills shudder, *lions hunker down,*in tall grasses, *and even elephants lumber after safety.
When great trees fall,*in forests, *small things recoil into silence, *their senses eroded beyond fear.
When great souls die, *the air around us becomes light,* rare, sterile. *We breathe, briefly. *Our eyes, briefly, *see with a hurtful clarity.
Our memory, *suddenly sharpened, *examines, *gnaws on kind words unsaid, *promised walks never taken.
Great souls die,* and our reality, *bound to them, *takes leave of us. *Our souls, *dependent upon their nurture, *now shrink, wizened.
Our minds, *formed and informed by their radiance, *fall away. *We are not so much maddened, as reduced, * to the unutterable ignorance of dark, cold caves.
And when great souls die, *after a period peace blooms, *slowly and always irregularly. *Spaces fill with a kind of soothing electric vibration.
Our senses, *restored, *never to be the same, *whisper to us. *They existed. *They existed. *We can be. *Be... and be better. *For they existed.
**Maya Angelou**
Our Fellow Citizens, Part One and Two - A CONVERSATION WITH THE FOUNDERS is written in first person, it is however; authored in partnership. Part Three -STATE SOVEREIGNTY is a modern conversation, authored in first person, from personal observation. We thank you for reading.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/Lof C and lady boots
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius cl/Lof C and lady boots
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #15 – Part 3
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
A Visit to The Pub – Part 3
Regarding State Sovereignty
Few Americans are aware of how different the EU and the USA are, at least governmentally. Being an American and having lived in Europe, in several different countries, for several years, I am at least in a position to explain part of the differences. One of the benefits of living in England was the enjoyable conversations I have had on many occasions, in a pub located near my home in London. Pubs have a long tradition in England. They have long been the local gathering place for the community. A pub is the place where people come to have a chat with neighbours and friends concerning their everyday lives. Yes many conversations are trivial, on matters concerning their favourite teams or matters concerning the price of goods and services. Yet given the current situation in world affairs, many conversations revolve around how England and its people are involved in world affairs.
The legend in England states, the word “gossip” is the modern equivalent of the real news. When, in the time before media outlets, the rulers wanted to know what the general feelings of the public were on important matters of state they would instruct their close advisers to visit the different well known pubs. Visit many different pubs, those frequented by important people and other pubs frequented by locals and then “Go Sip” some beer and listen. Listen to what the rich and powerful spoke of, listen to what the workers spoke of, and listen to their feeling on the matters of state upon which they had to make decisions. The advisers would then return and meet with the rulers, compare what they had heard in the different pubs and the rulers would then take these pieces of information into account before deciding. This has developed down through the ages into the word “gossip”.
What I would like to do in the following report is to share with the readers what might be considered my report from the pub. Read if you will, as though you are also at the table in the pub. Hearing what the people I have spoken to have said and the things I have learned while sipping a beer on many different occasions. I have had the wonderful chance to sip beers with the great and good and with the average worker. Many times I have learned more about the feelings of the average man while listening to a roofer, or a plasterer, or a plumber than to the words of an important businessman. The important person tends to shade their every word based upon how it might affect their image. The unimportant worker or the black cab driver will not shade his feelings, he will tell anyone straight out exactly how he or she feels, without the slightest compunction. These people know their job does not depend upon their image and how they might appear; their job depends upon the quality of work, or service they provide to their customer. Their only concern is the economic well-being of the country, in so far as how it affects their personal lives and their ability to earn, as the English put it, “Their Daily Crust of Bread.” They will nearly always tell you their true feelings without pulling punches.
I will put what I have learned in as clear a language and a far cleaner language then the descriptive, often somewhat vulgar, colloquial, often pungent phrases so often used in a pub setting of course. But if you, as the reader, place yourself in my seat at the pub with a strong ale firmly grasp in your hand, you might for a moment imagine your own views and join the conversation as I did.
First National sovereignty is very important in many areas of the EU. Many Europeans are devoted patriots of their individual countries and feel very little loyalty to the EU government. The vast majority view Brussels as an impediment at best and as an entity that will not last at worst. The constant worries concerning the mere survival of the Euro as a currency, is the most spoken of problem at least on the part of the media, but it really goes far deeper than that. It goes to the heart of the matter, these countries want to be seen and recognised as separate independent entities, which must be consulted on all matters pertaining to their well-being. They do not want a centralized power dictating their everyday lives.
This fact was vividly proven in a little known referendum on May 30th 2005. Nine countries within the EU had already approved a new constitution for Europe as a constitution union. The treaty among member countries authorizing the vote had stated, the acceptance of the constitution could be ratified by vote of the individual countries legislatures, or by referendum vote of the citizens of the individual countries. The treaty further held that ALL countries within the EU, as it was constructed upon that date, must ratify the constitution or it would not be held as enforceable.
The vote held on the 30th of May 2005, in France proved to be crucial. France, in a referendum vote of the citizens, which had a very high turnout, voted by a wide margin against the constitution.
Under the terms to the treaty, that should have ended the matter. But as politicians sometimes do, they ignored their own treaty and pushed forward. They told the voters, “Everyone should have a right to vote on the constitution.” The detractors of course pointed out the states must all ratify the constitution. They simply ignored the questions, though the questions grew louder, as politicians pushed forward.
In June the Netherlands held a referendum and again the constitution was defeated. To the dismay of a great number of people, it did not deter the politicians, still they pushed forward. They still held that if they could get a majority of the countries to ratify the treaty, they could negotiate with the other countries to join. Once again those against pointed out the clause of total unity of ratification of the constitution as written. Not a constitution, which once ratified by a majority of countries, would be changed by negotiation. They asked, “How would that work? Would it then be subjected to another round of ratification after the negotiations? If so, what would happen if the original ratifiers did not like the changes?” Yet again the politicians mostly ignored the question and moved forward with their insistence they could work out the details. In other words, “Don't confuse us with the facts, we already know the answers.”
The politicians pushed forward trying this way and that to work a deal out, even in light of the obvious anti-constitution movement that was growing. It was not until 2007 the idea was formally dropped and conceded the constitutional proposal had failed.
In October 2007 they decided a new manner of handling the reform was by the Treaty of Lisbon. In this manner they reworded the majority of changes they had wanted to institute through the constitution. The difference being, it would not be called a constitution, it would be a treaty. It still had to be ratified and when presented to the voters in Ireland in an open referendum, it went down to defeat. This vote was held on 12 June 2008. This did not set well with the supporters of the EU. So they decided one vote was not enough. After a long vicious campaign on the 2nd of October 2009 the same treaty was ratified in another open public referendum.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed the treaty in the middle of the night, without the public referendum he had promised the people of the UK. In part, many believe this was a main cause of his later electoral defeat in the next election. He had promised the voters an open referendum, just as the Irish voters had been given. The polls showed a probable overwhelming defeat if the public voted. Hence the public referendum idea was scrapped in favour of the Prime Minister signing the treaty.
The Irish anti Lisbon treaty campaigners were quoted in several articles as saying, "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
To the Irish Times Giscard complained the full quote should have read: "The latest brainwave is to preserve part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty, but hide them by breaking them up into several texts. The most innovative provisions would become simple amendments to the treaties of Maastricht and Nice. The technical improvements would be regrouped in a colourless, harmless treaty. The texts would be sent to national parliaments, which would vote separately.
Thus public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, the provisions that we dare not present directly. This process of 'dividing to ratify' is obviously unworthy of the challenge at stake. It may be a good magician's act. But it will confirm European citizens in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats".
So does the EU have a formal written constitution, the answer to that question remains “No”. There many believe lies the trouble the EU is still in. Those who have followed the economic crisis in Europe have seen the result, at least in part, of the Lisbon Treaty. Many have noticed the economic powerhouse of Europe is Germany. As such, Germany wields the crucial decision making authority when the time to bail out countries such as Greece comes to bear. When decisions are to be made, it is the German Government accountants that are often noted on the trips to Athens.
The USA does in fact have a formal written constitution; many think it is just not being used to the fullest extent possible. In 2005 when the proposed EU constitution went down to defeat in France, one of the EU's founding members, one of the reasons cited by the opposition was loss of sovereignty. French citizens wished to be consulted on each process of change, on each matter that might directly affect decisions concerning their individual countries citizens. Matters such as economic, strategic and yes, even participation in wars. These were not matters to be decided in a capitol other than their own. There have been moments during the recent crisis, following the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, when it appeared the German Accountants might also descend upon Paris. I still wonder how that might, or should I say possibly, may be received?
As I said above we have a formal written constitution. It is a constitution that guarantees our right to take decisions back to the individual States by use of the Article V portion of that constitution.
When the politicians in the United States Federal Government insist on making every decision affecting every citizen’s everyday lives and welfare, it is time for a change. Decisions that, as the French said need to be made in their own capitol. As it currently stands, twelve states, those most populous states, not necessarily the most economically powerful states either, decide most elections, hence most policy decisions.
In Obama's latest plan to go to war, he travelled through many capital cities throughout many parts of Europe. He campaigned hard to win the support of individual capital cities’ politicians. Why, because the individual countries in Europe still have a modicum of sovereignty. The Presidents or Prime Ministers of those countries still hold sway over what the EU as a group of countries decide. Further, they hold sway over even what they as individual countries decide.
Just because the leaders of our individual states are called Governors, not Presidents or Prime Ministers, should they actually be treated differently? It is the citizens of those states that are going to bear the burdens of the war, either in the cost of treasure or blood or both. Please I beg of the reader, do not consider most politicians, the majority of whom are feeding at the trough in Washington, to be representatives of the people. Yes, there are a few exceptions and some are notable in their defence of their states and the people of the USA as a whole. When taken as a whole, I am truly sorry to say, the poll numbers are correct, very few are respected or trusted. In my humble opinion, they have demonstrated too often they do not deserve the trust or respect of the voters.
Now, I understand, what you have read here in these simple lines is just the result of simple people expressing their different opinions over a few beers in a Pub in London. I know that our good and great politicians hold public town hall meetings, where sober topics are discussed. I have seen the results of some of those town hall meetings held by Senator McCain of Arizona. The seeming contempt he holds for the voters. I also know, if he were being held to account by his fellow politicians, holding offices in the State of Arizona legislature, his reactions to questions raised by them might be entirely different. Especially considering it was those limited number of votes of those Legislators and the support of the Governor, he would have to count upon to be re-elected. That was the original manner of electing Senators, not the current where the challenger must overcome the incumbents’ war chest, provided by those who most benefit by his re-election.
It is beyond time to change the status quo in Washington. Hoping to vote out the current unsatisfactory group and replace them with others, only later to find the replacements are even less satisfactory, has ended long ago. It is time to study and further the work going on to restore Liberty in the USA. A good place to start is by taking time to actually study the content on http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html and then contribute what time and effort you can to actually making a difference for generations to come.
We offer additional background and research information concerning State Sovereignty.
State Sovereignty - A Brief History
STATE SOVEREIGNTY
STATE SOVEREIGNTY. The doctrine of divided state sovereignty was fashioned by the American revolutionaries. From the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Republicans (primarily in New England and the upper South) and Nationalists (in middle states and the lower South) struggled to define state sovereignty against the backdrop of a weak national government.
The sovereignty question was unresolved when the federal government commenced in 1789. The belief that sovereignty was divided between the several states and the federal government received validation by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which held that states could be sued by private citizens. This decision led quickly to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, guaranteeing sovereign immunity for states against actions of citizens of another state or a foreign state. Divided sovereignty became the accepted political theory until the 1830s and 1840s.
The South Carolina politician John C. Calhoun became the most prominent advocate for state sovereignty. A former Nationalist, Calhoun returned in the 1830s to the idea that sovereignty was indivisible—the Constitution had been created by the people of the several states, acting as sovereign entities, and not by the Union of the people in those states. During the nullification crisis of 1828–1832, Calhoun led South Carolina to the brink of secession by advocating an ideology of state supremacy to nullify a federal tariff.
During the 1840s and 1850s, Calhoun's doctrine became increasingly tied to the defence of slavery. Abolitionists, however, also used state sovereignty as a weapon. The Southern-supported Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 subverted states' rights by ordering Free states to return slaves, and antislavery advocates (usually staunch Nationalists) used state sovereignty to fight the law in Able-man v. Booth (1859). Calhoun's theories ultimately found expression in secession, and in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861).
Although the Union victory in the Civil War (1861– 1865) seemed to secure the triumph of nationalism, the Reconstruction-era ratification of the Fourteenth (1868) and Fifteenth Amendments (1870) transformed the sovereignty debate. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving anyone of the rights of citizenship, denying equal protection of the law, or violating fundamental rights without due process of law. The Fifteenth Amendment mandates that federal and state governments shall not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race. Although the amendments clearly enhanced federal power to protect individual rights, in the decades that followed, the Supreme Court interpreted them narrowly in order to preserve distinctions between federal and state sovereignty. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), the Court held that Americans had certain rights as U.S. citizens and others as state citizens—the Fourteenth Amendment only guaranteed the former. Both in U.S. v. Cruikshank and U.S. v. Reese (1876) and in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court held that Congress could enforce the amendments only against state actions; federal law could not punish private citizens who violated civil rights of African Americans.
From the end of Reconstruction until the Great Depression, courts interpreted governance of property, family, morality, public health and safety, crime, education, and religion as police powers reserved to states. One result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was a federalism revolution in the 1930s, described by historian Forrest McDonald as an "expansion of federal activity on a scale unprecedented in peacetime." Starting with Nebbia v. New York (1934), the U.S. Supreme Court transformed federal-state relations by upholding many of the programs of the New Deal.
In 1954, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education delivered what many believed was the fatal blow to state sovereignty. Holding that Southern state laws mandating "separate but equal" schools for black and white students were unconstitutional, the Court ordered local school districts to comply "with all deliberate speed" with federal district judges monitoring their desegregation plans. Southern state and local officials resisted compliance, and states' rights theorists denounced the Court in terms reminiscent of those used in the 1850s. The South once again conflated states' rights with racial issues and gave the Supreme Court great moral authority with the rest of the nation as the protector of individual rights from discriminatory state actions. This trend continued throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, as the Court validated federal civil rights laws and President Lyndon B. Johnson's expansive Great Society programs.
Although conservatives and states' rights advocates had denounced the Court since Brown as "judicial activists" and "government by judiciary," the 1980s and 1990s witnessed the resurgence of state sovereignty theories. As Congress enacted laws giving block grants to states for poverty relief and education, the Court shifted toward interpretations of federalism last seen in the 1870s. Legal analysts were stunned by the Court's decision in U.S. v. Lopez (1995), invalidating a federal law prohibiting firearms within one thousand feet of a school, public or private. This decision heralded a new era of judicial activism, this time with an emphasis toward states.
In 2002, the Court reinterpreted state sovereignty immunity with an activist reading of the Eleventh Amendment. In Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002), a 5-4 majority held that state sovereign immunity prohibits federal agencies from adjudicating an individual's complaint against a state. In the early twenty-first century, state sovereignty is very much alive as a legal and political doctrine.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benedict, Michael Les. "Preserving Federalism: Reconstruction and the Waite Court." Supreme Court Review (1978): 39– 79.
Cushman, Barry. Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
Rakove, Jack N. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Knopf, 1996.
Patricia Hagler Minter
See also Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ; Fugitive Slave Acts ; United States v. Cruikshank ; United States v. Reese ; andvol. 9: Congress Debates the Fourteenth Amendment .
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804027.html
On site -historical study of American Governmental history, and how/why the 14th-16th-and 17th Amendments have established federal supremacy over the states, good background for research and study.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/14th-amendment.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/16th-amendment.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/17th-amendment.html
What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power? Advice From James Madison, Father Of The US Constitution
1. What can a State – or several States – do to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?
2. Federalist No. 46 (7th para.) discusses how individual States or several States carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. If a particular State takes an action which the federal government doesn’t like, but which has the support of the People of that State, the federal government can’t do anything about it unless it is willing to use force.
When several States oppose an unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government, Madison says they have powerful means of opposition: the disquietude of the people, their repugnance (e.g., baby-killing enshrined into public policy), the Peoples’ refusal to co-operate with the officers of the federal government; the opposition of the State officials; and all those legislative devices State Legislatures can invent to thwart & impede the federal government in its unconstitutional schemes.
So, in para. 7, Madison contemplates that not all States will oppose unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. But he shows that this need not impede the States who do. Such States need not implement in their States the federal government’s lawless usurpations. Have we forgotten how to just say, “NO! You have no authority under the Constitution to do this, and the Sovereign State of "X" and the Sovereign People of the State of "X" won’t permit this.” If we have taken the Oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3), then we are bound by Honour to support it!
3. Note that Madison doesn’t say the States should file lawsuits in federal court. And WHY would Sovereign States, which formed a federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution; ask one branch of the federal government (judiciary) to opine on whether a “law” approved by the two other branches (legislative & executive) exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress or encroaches on the reserved powers of the States and the People (10th Amendment)? All three branches of the federal government have been unified against The Constitution, the States, and the People for a very long time! Why do States put themselves in the position of supplicants to a Court which has already shown itself to be contemptuous of the Constitution, and of the States’ and The Peoples’ reserved powers?
Furthermore, the Supreme Court is not even the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution! Alexander Hamilton said federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para.); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”(Federalist No.16, 10th para).
4. In para. 8, Madison discusses a “general alarm” among the States as to encroachments by the federal government. Here, Madison contemplates concerted “plans of resistance” among the States; and Madison says it may come to a “trial of force” if a crazed federal government doesn’t back down. In para. 10, Madison says that the federal government’s “schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people”.
5. In para. 9, Madison discusses the federal government’s initiation of a “trial of force”. But who would fight for the federal government? Madison spoke of the regular Army as the force used by the federal government. But that has been the Army of our children and neighbours’ children! [We need not fear them unless we permit aliens to serve in our armed forces.] The federal government does have, here & there, those heroic, noble, and brave men who shoot nursing mothers in the forehead, young boys in the back, gas and apparently incinerate men, women & children. How many are there? Then there is Obama’s personal “civilian national security force”. Has it been established? Even so, would they be honourable men, or another collection of thugs? In any event, Madison said, “…it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”
6. When we quote James Madison and The Federalist Papers on what States may do when the federal government has encroached upon the powers reserved by the States and the People; we quote a high Authority on The Constitution. James Madison is the Father of the Constitution, and the author of many of the Federalist Papers. States act lawfully when they follow such guidance of James Madison. When the federal government descends into lawlessness & tyranny, The States and The People may protect and preserve their Constitution – as they are already sworn to do.
7. Yes, the ultimate authority resides in The People. But this does not mean that The People should – or need to – initiate a show of force. Remember the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King! He put on his clerical collar and went out into the streets with others to protest State LAWS which enforced segregation. They used non-violent civil disobedience: Black people sat down at “white’s only” lunch counters! Black people sat in the front of the buses. They did not initiate force. The moral superiority of their position could not be denied, and they won.
8. We have our sacred Constitution. The most important concepts for you to learn are these: (1) ENUMERATED POWERS (2) Why neither the “GENERAL WELFARE“, the INTERSTATE COMMERCE nor the “NECESSARY & PROPER” [see linked paper at para. 13] clauses authorize Congress (or the President or the FEDERAL COURTS ) to exceed their enumerated powers (3) The true meaning of the “RULE OF LAW” and how that differs from the “Rule of Men”; (4) What is “FEDERALISM“, and (5) The origin of our Rights and why you must NEVER speak of “constitutional” rights. My papers on RIGHTS explain the moral superiority of our position. You must learn why our position is morally superior to that of the statists. And you must be prepared to explain it at all times.
May God be merciful and grant us national repentance and a peaceful political resolution.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/what-should-states-do-when-the-fe...
http://minnesota.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/12/what-should-state...
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/ gd and lady boots
A Visit to The Pub – Part 3
Regarding State Sovereignty
Few Americans are aware of how different the EU and the USA are, at least governmentally. Being an American and having lived in Europe, in several different countries, for several years, I am at least in a position to explain part of the differences. One of the benefits of living in England was the enjoyable conversations I have had on many occasions, in a pub located near my home in London. Pubs have a long tradition in England. They have long been the local gathering place for the community. A pub is the place where people come to have a chat with neighbours and friends concerning their everyday lives. Yes many conversations are trivial, on matters concerning their favourite teams or matters concerning the price of goods and services. Yet given the current situation in world affairs, many conversations revolve around how England and its people are involved in world affairs.
The legend in England states, the word “gossip” is the modern equivalent of the real news. When, in the time before media outlets, the rulers wanted to know what the general feelings of the public were on important matters of state they would instruct their close advisers to visit the different well known pubs. Visit many different pubs, those frequented by important people and other pubs frequented by locals and then “Go Sip” some beer and listen. Listen to what the rich and powerful spoke of, listen to what the workers spoke of, and listen to their feeling on the matters of state upon which they had to make decisions. The advisers would then return and meet with the rulers, compare what they had heard in the different pubs and the rulers would then take these pieces of information into account before deciding. This has developed down through the ages into the word “gossip”.
What I would like to do in the following report is to share with the readers what might be considered my report from the pub. Read if you will, as though you are also at the table in the pub. Hearing what the people I have spoken to have said and the things I have learned while sipping a beer on many different occasions. I have had the wonderful chance to sip beers with the great and good and with the average worker. Many times I have learned more about the feelings of the average man while listening to a roofer, or a plasterer, or a plumber than to the words of an important businessman. The important person tends to shade their every word based upon how it might affect their image. The unimportant worker or the black cab driver will not shade his feelings, he will tell anyone straight out exactly how he or she feels, without the slightest compunction. These people know their job does not depend upon their image and how they might appear; their job depends upon the quality of work, or service they provide to their customer. Their only concern is the economic well-being of the country, in so far as how it affects their personal lives and their ability to earn, as the English put it, “Their Daily Crust of Bread.” They will nearly always tell you their true feelings without pulling punches.
I will put what I have learned in as clear a language and a far cleaner language then the descriptive, often somewhat vulgar, colloquial, often pungent phrases so often used in a pub setting of course. But if you, as the reader, place yourself in my seat at the pub with a strong ale firmly grasp in your hand, you might for a moment imagine your own views and join the conversation as I did.
First National sovereignty is very important in many areas of the EU. Many Europeans are devoted patriots of their individual countries and feel very little loyalty to the EU government. The vast majority view Brussels as an impediment at best and as an entity that will not last at worst. The constant worries concerning the mere survival of the Euro as a currency, is the most spoken of problem at least on the part of the media, but it really goes far deeper than that. It goes to the heart of the matter, these countries want to be seen and recognised as separate independent entities, which must be consulted on all matters pertaining to their well-being. They do not want a centralized power dictating their everyday lives.
This fact was vividly proven in a little known referendum on May 30th 2005. Nine countries within the EU had already approved a new constitution for Europe as a constitution union. The treaty among member countries authorizing the vote had stated, the acceptance of the constitution could be ratified by vote of the individual countries legislatures, or by referendum vote of the citizens of the individual countries. The treaty further held that ALL countries within the EU, as it was constructed upon that date, must ratify the constitution or it would not be held as enforceable.
The vote held on the 30th of May 2005, in France proved to be crucial. France, in a referendum vote of the citizens, which had a very high turnout, voted by a wide margin against the constitution.
Under the terms to the treaty, that should have ended the matter. But as politicians sometimes do, they ignored their own treaty and pushed forward. They told the voters, “Everyone should have a right to vote on the constitution.” The detractors of course pointed out the states must all ratify the constitution. They simply ignored the questions, though the questions grew louder, as politicians pushed forward.
In June the Netherlands held a referendum and again the constitution was defeated. To the dismay of a great number of people, it did not deter the politicians, still they pushed forward. They still held that if they could get a majority of the countries to ratify the treaty, they could negotiate with the other countries to join. Once again those against pointed out the clause of total unity of ratification of the constitution as written. Not a constitution, which once ratified by a majority of countries, would be changed by negotiation. They asked, “How would that work? Would it then be subjected to another round of ratification after the negotiations? If so, what would happen if the original ratifiers did not like the changes?” Yet again the politicians mostly ignored the question and moved forward with their insistence they could work out the details. In other words, “Don't confuse us with the facts, we already know the answers.”
The politicians pushed forward trying this way and that to work a deal out, even in light of the obvious anti-constitution movement that was growing. It was not until 2007 the idea was formally dropped and conceded the constitutional proposal had failed.
In October 2007 they decided a new manner of handling the reform was by the Treaty of Lisbon. In this manner they reworded the majority of changes they had wanted to institute through the constitution. The difference being, it would not be called a constitution, it would be a treaty. It still had to be ratified and when presented to the voters in Ireland in an open referendum, it went down to defeat. This vote was held on 12 June 2008. This did not set well with the supporters of the EU. So they decided one vote was not enough. After a long vicious campaign on the 2nd of October 2009 the same treaty was ratified in another open public referendum.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed the treaty in the middle of the night, without the public referendum he had promised the people of the UK. In part, many believe this was a main cause of his later electoral defeat in the next election. He had promised the voters an open referendum, just as the Irish voters had been given. The polls showed a probable overwhelming defeat if the public voted. Hence the public referendum idea was scrapped in favour of the Prime Minister signing the treaty.
The Irish anti Lisbon treaty campaigners were quoted in several articles as saying, "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
To the Irish Times Giscard complained the full quote should have read: "The latest brainwave is to preserve part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty, but hide them by breaking them up into several texts. The most innovative provisions would become simple amendments to the treaties of Maastricht and Nice. The technical improvements would be regrouped in a colourless, harmless treaty. The texts would be sent to national parliaments, which would vote separately.
Thus public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, the provisions that we dare not present directly. This process of 'dividing to ratify' is obviously unworthy of the challenge at stake. It may be a good magician's act. But it will confirm European citizens in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats".
So does the EU have a formal written constitution, the answer to that question remains “No”. There many believe lies the trouble the EU is still in. Those who have followed the economic crisis in Europe have seen the result, at least in part, of the Lisbon Treaty. Many have noticed the economic powerhouse of Europe is Germany. As such, Germany wields the crucial decision making authority when the time to bail out countries such as Greece comes to bear. When decisions are to be made, it is the German Government accountants that are often noted on the trips to Athens.
The USA does in fact have a formal written constitution; many think it is just not being used to the fullest extent possible. In 2005 when the proposed EU constitution went down to defeat in France, one of the EU's founding members, one of the reasons cited by the opposition was loss of sovereignty. French citizens wished to be consulted on each process of change, on each matter that might directly affect decisions concerning their individual countries citizens. Matters such as economic, strategic and yes, even participation in wars. These were not matters to be decided in a capitol other than their own. There have been moments during the recent crisis, following the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, when it appeared the German Accountants might also descend upon Paris. I still wonder how that might, or should I say possibly, may be received?
As I said above we have a formal written constitution. It is a constitution that guarantees our right to take decisions back to the individual States by use of the Article V portion of that constitution.
When the politicians in the United States Federal Government insist on making every decision affecting every citizen’s everyday lives and welfare, it is time for a change. Decisions that, as the French said need to be made in their own capitol. As it currently stands, twelve states, those most populous states, not necessarily the most economically powerful states either, decide most elections, hence most policy decisions.
In Obama's latest plan to go to war, he travelled through many capital cities throughout many parts of Europe. He campaigned hard to win the support of individual capital cities’ politicians. Why, because the individual countries in Europe still have a modicum of sovereignty. The Presidents or Prime Ministers of those countries still hold sway over what the EU as a group of countries decide. Further, they hold sway over even what they as individual countries decide.
Just because the leaders of our individual states are called Governors, not Presidents or Prime Ministers, should they actually be treated differently? It is the citizens of those states that are going to bear the burdens of the war, either in the cost of treasure or blood or both. Please I beg of the reader, do not consider most politicians, the majority of whom are feeding at the trough in Washington, to be representatives of the people. Yes, there are a few exceptions and some are notable in their defence of their states and the people of the USA as a whole. When taken as a whole, I am truly sorry to say, the poll numbers are correct, very few are respected or trusted. In my humble opinion, they have demonstrated too often they do not deserve the trust or respect of the voters.
Now, I understand, what you have read here in these simple lines is just the result of simple people expressing their different opinions over a few beers in a Pub in London. I know that our good and great politicians hold public town hall meetings, where sober topics are discussed. I have seen the results of some of those town hall meetings held by Senator McCain of Arizona. The seeming contempt he holds for the voters. I also know, if he were being held to account by his fellow politicians, holding offices in the State of Arizona legislature, his reactions to questions raised by them might be entirely different. Especially considering it was those limited number of votes of those Legislators and the support of the Governor, he would have to count upon to be re-elected. That was the original manner of electing Senators, not the current where the challenger must overcome the incumbents’ war chest, provided by those who most benefit by his re-election.
It is beyond time to change the status quo in Washington. Hoping to vote out the current unsatisfactory group and replace them with others, only later to find the replacements are even less satisfactory, has ended long ago. It is time to study and further the work going on to restore Liberty in the USA. A good place to start is by taking time to actually study the content on http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html and then contribute what time and effort you can to actually making a difference for generations to come.
We offer additional background and research information concerning State Sovereignty.
State Sovereignty - A Brief History
STATE SOVEREIGNTY
STATE SOVEREIGNTY. The doctrine of divided state sovereignty was fashioned by the American revolutionaries. From the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Republicans (primarily in New England and the upper South) and Nationalists (in middle states and the lower South) struggled to define state sovereignty against the backdrop of a weak national government.
The sovereignty question was unresolved when the federal government commenced in 1789. The belief that sovereignty was divided between the several states and the federal government received validation by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which held that states could be sued by private citizens. This decision led quickly to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, guaranteeing sovereign immunity for states against actions of citizens of another state or a foreign state. Divided sovereignty became the accepted political theory until the 1830s and 1840s.
The South Carolina politician John C. Calhoun became the most prominent advocate for state sovereignty. A former Nationalist, Calhoun returned in the 1830s to the idea that sovereignty was indivisible—the Constitution had been created by the people of the several states, acting as sovereign entities, and not by the Union of the people in those states. During the nullification crisis of 1828–1832, Calhoun led South Carolina to the brink of secession by advocating an ideology of state supremacy to nullify a federal tariff.
During the 1840s and 1850s, Calhoun's doctrine became increasingly tied to the defence of slavery. Abolitionists, however, also used state sovereignty as a weapon. The Southern-supported Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 subverted states' rights by ordering Free states to return slaves, and antislavery advocates (usually staunch Nationalists) used state sovereignty to fight the law in Able-man v. Booth (1859). Calhoun's theories ultimately found expression in secession, and in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861).
Although the Union victory in the Civil War (1861– 1865) seemed to secure the triumph of nationalism, the Reconstruction-era ratification of the Fourteenth (1868) and Fifteenth Amendments (1870) transformed the sovereignty debate. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving anyone of the rights of citizenship, denying equal protection of the law, or violating fundamental rights without due process of law. The Fifteenth Amendment mandates that federal and state governments shall not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race. Although the amendments clearly enhanced federal power to protect individual rights, in the decades that followed, the Supreme Court interpreted them narrowly in order to preserve distinctions between federal and state sovereignty. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), the Court held that Americans had certain rights as U.S. citizens and others as state citizens—the Fourteenth Amendment only guaranteed the former. Both in U.S. v. Cruikshank and U.S. v. Reese (1876) and in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court held that Congress could enforce the amendments only against state actions; federal law could not punish private citizens who violated civil rights of African Americans.
From the end of Reconstruction until the Great Depression, courts interpreted governance of property, family, morality, public health and safety, crime, education, and religion as police powers reserved to states. One result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was a federalism revolution in the 1930s, described by historian Forrest McDonald as an "expansion of federal activity on a scale unprecedented in peacetime." Starting with Nebbia v. New York (1934), the U.S. Supreme Court transformed federal-state relations by upholding many of the programs of the New Deal.
In 1954, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education delivered what many believed was the fatal blow to state sovereignty. Holding that Southern state laws mandating "separate but equal" schools for black and white students were unconstitutional, the Court ordered local school districts to comply "with all deliberate speed" with federal district judges monitoring their desegregation plans. Southern state and local officials resisted compliance, and states' rights theorists denounced the Court in terms reminiscent of those used in the 1850s. The South once again conflated states' rights with racial issues and gave the Supreme Court great moral authority with the rest of the nation as the protector of individual rights from discriminatory state actions. This trend continued throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, as the Court validated federal civil rights laws and President Lyndon B. Johnson's expansive Great Society programs.
Although conservatives and states' rights advocates had denounced the Court since Brown as "judicial activists" and "government by judiciary," the 1980s and 1990s witnessed the resurgence of state sovereignty theories. As Congress enacted laws giving block grants to states for poverty relief and education, the Court shifted toward interpretations of federalism last seen in the 1870s. Legal analysts were stunned by the Court's decision in U.S. v. Lopez (1995), invalidating a federal law prohibiting firearms within one thousand feet of a school, public or private. This decision heralded a new era of judicial activism, this time with an emphasis toward states.
In 2002, the Court reinterpreted state sovereignty immunity with an activist reading of the Eleventh Amendment. In Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002), a 5-4 majority held that state sovereign immunity prohibits federal agencies from adjudicating an individual's complaint against a state. In the early twenty-first century, state sovereignty is very much alive as a legal and political doctrine.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benedict, Michael Les. "Preserving Federalism: Reconstruction and the Waite Court." Supreme Court Review (1978): 39– 79.
Cushman, Barry. Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
Rakove, Jack N. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Knopf, 1996.
Patricia Hagler Minter
See also Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ; Fugitive Slave Acts ; United States v. Cruikshank ; United States v. Reese ; andvol. 9: Congress Debates the Fourteenth Amendment .
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804027.html
On site -historical study of American Governmental history, and how/why the 14th-16th-and 17th Amendments have established federal supremacy over the states, good background for research and study.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/14th-amendment.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/16th-amendment.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/17th-amendment.html
What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power? Advice From James Madison, Father Of The US Constitution
1. What can a State – or several States – do to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?
2. Federalist No. 46 (7th para.) discusses how individual States or several States carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. If a particular State takes an action which the federal government doesn’t like, but which has the support of the People of that State, the federal government can’t do anything about it unless it is willing to use force.
When several States oppose an unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government, Madison says they have powerful means of opposition: the disquietude of the people, their repugnance (e.g., baby-killing enshrined into public policy), the Peoples’ refusal to co-operate with the officers of the federal government; the opposition of the State officials; and all those legislative devices State Legislatures can invent to thwart & impede the federal government in its unconstitutional schemes.
So, in para. 7, Madison contemplates that not all States will oppose unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. But he shows that this need not impede the States who do. Such States need not implement in their States the federal government’s lawless usurpations. Have we forgotten how to just say, “NO! You have no authority under the Constitution to do this, and the Sovereign State of "X" and the Sovereign People of the State of "X" won’t permit this.” If we have taken the Oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3), then we are bound by Honour to support it!
3. Note that Madison doesn’t say the States should file lawsuits in federal court. And WHY would Sovereign States, which formed a federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution; ask one branch of the federal government (judiciary) to opine on whether a “law” approved by the two other branches (legislative & executive) exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress or encroaches on the reserved powers of the States and the People (10th Amendment)? All three branches of the federal government have been unified against The Constitution, the States, and the People for a very long time! Why do States put themselves in the position of supplicants to a Court which has already shown itself to be contemptuous of the Constitution, and of the States’ and The Peoples’ reserved powers?
Furthermore, the Supreme Court is not even the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution! Alexander Hamilton said federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para.); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”(Federalist No.16, 10th para).
4. In para. 8, Madison discusses a “general alarm” among the States as to encroachments by the federal government. Here, Madison contemplates concerted “plans of resistance” among the States; and Madison says it may come to a “trial of force” if a crazed federal government doesn’t back down. In para. 10, Madison says that the federal government’s “schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people”.
5. In para. 9, Madison discusses the federal government’s initiation of a “trial of force”. But who would fight for the federal government? Madison spoke of the regular Army as the force used by the federal government. But that has been the Army of our children and neighbours’ children! [We need not fear them unless we permit aliens to serve in our armed forces.] The federal government does have, here & there, those heroic, noble, and brave men who shoot nursing mothers in the forehead, young boys in the back, gas and apparently incinerate men, women & children. How many are there? Then there is Obama’s personal “civilian national security force”. Has it been established? Even so, would they be honourable men, or another collection of thugs? In any event, Madison said, “…it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”
6. When we quote James Madison and The Federalist Papers on what States may do when the federal government has encroached upon the powers reserved by the States and the People; we quote a high Authority on The Constitution. James Madison is the Father of the Constitution, and the author of many of the Federalist Papers. States act lawfully when they follow such guidance of James Madison. When the federal government descends into lawlessness & tyranny, The States and The People may protect and preserve their Constitution – as they are already sworn to do.
7. Yes, the ultimate authority resides in The People. But this does not mean that The People should – or need to – initiate a show of force. Remember the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King! He put on his clerical collar and went out into the streets with others to protest State LAWS which enforced segregation. They used non-violent civil disobedience: Black people sat down at “white’s only” lunch counters! Black people sat in the front of the buses. They did not initiate force. The moral superiority of their position could not be denied, and they won.
8. We have our sacred Constitution. The most important concepts for you to learn are these: (1) ENUMERATED POWERS (2) Why neither the “GENERAL WELFARE“, the INTERSTATE COMMERCE nor the “NECESSARY & PROPER” [see linked paper at para. 13] clauses authorize Congress (or the President or the FEDERAL COURTS ) to exceed their enumerated powers (3) The true meaning of the “RULE OF LAW” and how that differs from the “Rule of Men”; (4) What is “FEDERALISM“, and (5) The origin of our Rights and why you must NEVER speak of “constitutional” rights. My papers on RIGHTS explain the moral superiority of our position. You must learn why our position is morally superior to that of the statists. And you must be prepared to explain it at all times.
May God be merciful and grant us national repentance and a peaceful political resolution.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/what-should-states-do-when-the-fe...
http://minnesota.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/12/what-should-state...
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/ gd and lady boots
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #16 – Part 1
THE CHAOS THEORIES SERIES
THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISES
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America.
Chaos in the Halls of Government
Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions,
Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on. These phenomena are often described by fractal mathematics, which captures the infinite complexity of nature. Many natural objects exhibit fractal properties, including landscapes, clouds, trees, organs, rivers etc, and many of the systems in which we live exhibit complex, chaotic behavior. Recognizing the chaotic, fractal nature of our world can give us new insight, power, and wisdom. For example, by understanding the complex, chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere, a balloon pilot can “steer” a balloon to a desired location. By understanding that our ecosystems, our social systems, and our economic systems are interconnected, we can hope to avoid actions which may end up being detrimental to our long-term well-being.
The missing word is “Stewardship” – which fits in with the proper prioritization of the causes and effects of the SJTR and PTR.
_
Principles of Chaos
The Butterfly Effect: This effect grants the power to cause a hurricane in China to a butterfly flapping its wings in New Mexico. It may take a very long time, but the connection is real. If the butterfly had not flapped its wings at just the right point in space/time, the hurricane would not have happened. A more rigorous way to express this is that small changes in the initial conditions lead to drastic changes in the results. Our lives are an ongoing demonstration of this principle. Who knows what the long-term effects of teaching millions of kids about chaos and fractals will be?
Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.
Order / Disorder Chaos is not simply disorder. Chaos explores the transitions between order and disorder, which often occur in surprising ways.
Mixing: Turbulence ensures that two adjacent points in a complex system will eventually end up in very different positions after some time has elapsed. Examples: Two neighboring water molecules may end up in different parts of the ocean or even in different oceans. A group of helium balloons that launch together will eventually land in drastically different places. Mixing is thorough because turbulence occurs at all scales. It is also nonlinear: fluids cannot be unmixed.
Feedback: Systems often become chaotic when there is feedback present. A good example is the behavior of the stock market. As the value of a stock rises or falls, people are inclined to buy or sell that stock. This in turn further affects the price of the stock, causing it to rise or fall chaotically.
Fractals: A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems - the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc. [http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/]
Now let us take the Chaos principle to Washington and attempt to apply it to the Many Many Agencies and Departments or the Mega-Bureaucracy. Individuals with widely dispersed needs and goals are elected and sent to Represent [fiduciary] of the many citizens of their State or district. Now how can a Senator that comes from the BIG giant population concentration we call major CITIES be elected to by majority vote - 90% of the State is rural in nature.
By limiting the length of bill to 100 pages so all can read, understand, correct and contribute - Chaos has its place in the creative and productive process through unexpected discoveries, meetings and opportunities. This Chaos in a free society leads to harmony - How is it possible for the Senator to represent diametrically opposed needs, wants, and requirements to maintain liberty and freedom of property rights and ownership? So the Senator lives in a constant state of Chaos as pressures are applied at random - Financials in cities - highways in the rest of the State now throw in the Needs of the Agriculture, Timber and mining industries.
After the Legislatures have their fun creating laws, the bureaucracies jump in to define and build their kingdoms - Surely this chaos involves the Congress and making laws, then the Executive setting up and staffing requirements to put the law into effect - the new Staff now must read the law and try to determine what Congress really intended.
The same limits on rules and regulations should apply to the bureaucracies. Most laws should never be enforced by the central government - After this has some level of understanding the Agency must write Rules and Regulations [details fleshing out the law].
The lobbyist has a vital function in creating awareness of needs in community and commerce. The lobbyist’s role would be more productive if they were attuned to subsidiarity and solidarity - It is here that 13,000 lobbyist exert more stress to the situation . . most likely the Lobbyist wrote at least parts of the law so now the interests switch to making sure the Agency does not wonder off the reservation. All are pulled by what the appointed Agency head that the Executive picked now brings to the process.
Again – sending out agents to eat out the people’s substance (DOI) These agencies should not even exist – if only for 2 reasons – it costs twice as much in tax dollars and borrowings to run from DC vs the state capital; and three times as much as performed by community services – churches and service organizations. - Then they must form committees in Congress to oversee the agency which means that they must have a sub-committee for each sub agency formed by the Agency, Now we have the people that are effected by the law, rules and regulations starting to see that it is a disaster for them. If they cannot exert power over the agency they must seek relief in the Courts.
Select Privilege - Courts are very slow in many instances - if you win the first level and can not secure a hold on the law going into effect then one must operate under it until they hopefully gain relief at the Appeals level, most likely it will then go to the Supreme Court. During this time the entire industry might have operated under alternating rules = true chaos.
Sending out agents to eat out the people’s substance (DOI) Violation of States rights - Next the Federal chaos might be challenged by the States Attorney Generals . . again differing findings in different States will force a unlimited set of rules and regulations. Now if States prevail the Federal Attorney General might decide to challenge the Courts results such as happened in the State of Texas. The Supreme Court invalidated parts of the voters rights bills and AG Holder has sued to stop the law.
Violates Subsidiarity - Texas had a requirement that each voter had to have State approved picture ID to vote. The Supreme Court said this was a permitted State power. Also the AG had the right to review and reject the Congressional district design so the party in power could force redesigns that benefited their party. Well the SC approved the States map as the Republicans desired, now the AG has gone to court to stop that under the anti discrimination act.
Money is the master, not the servant - Lastly let us look at the Federal Reserve law and how it is managed by Congress in the Senate and House banking committees - yes I said committees and there are many so more can serve on the MONEY/POWER committees. The Fed is Owned by the Federal Treasury - a Board of governors are appointed by the Executive and they set the open market policies. The Congress created the Fed so they do have power over them and they have the ability to require the Fed to pay the PROFITS EARNED BY THE FED DURING THE YEAR . once a year the Congress instruct the Fed to pay those PROFITS to the Treasurer - the Congress owns and manages a sole source Bank . .
The Chaos of the streets removes responsibility as the perps ravage and burn - More chaos created by Congress so they could hide from financial decisions that have negative effects on the economy - nope not my fault voters it is that Independent Fed that the President manages through the Treasury Department that cost you your money and your property.
Thank you for your patience to get through all this chaos and my God it is only the tip of Mountain top called an island in the deep deep deep political seas.....
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/ cl/ MC and Wild Vortex
THE SCIENCE OF SURPRISES
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America.
Chaos in the Halls of Government
Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions,
Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on. These phenomena are often described by fractal mathematics, which captures the infinite complexity of nature. Many natural objects exhibit fractal properties, including landscapes, clouds, trees, organs, rivers etc, and many of the systems in which we live exhibit complex, chaotic behavior. Recognizing the chaotic, fractal nature of our world can give us new insight, power, and wisdom. For example, by understanding the complex, chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere, a balloon pilot can “steer” a balloon to a desired location. By understanding that our ecosystems, our social systems, and our economic systems are interconnected, we can hope to avoid actions which may end up being detrimental to our long-term well-being.
The missing word is “Stewardship” – which fits in with the proper prioritization of the causes and effects of the SJTR and PTR.
_
Principles of Chaos
The Butterfly Effect: This effect grants the power to cause a hurricane in China to a butterfly flapping its wings in New Mexico. It may take a very long time, but the connection is real. If the butterfly had not flapped its wings at just the right point in space/time, the hurricane would not have happened. A more rigorous way to express this is that small changes in the initial conditions lead to drastic changes in the results. Our lives are an ongoing demonstration of this principle. Who knows what the long-term effects of teaching millions of kids about chaos and fractals will be?
Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.
Order / Disorder Chaos is not simply disorder. Chaos explores the transitions between order and disorder, which often occur in surprising ways.
Mixing: Turbulence ensures that two adjacent points in a complex system will eventually end up in very different positions after some time has elapsed. Examples: Two neighboring water molecules may end up in different parts of the ocean or even in different oceans. A group of helium balloons that launch together will eventually land in drastically different places. Mixing is thorough because turbulence occurs at all scales. It is also nonlinear: fluids cannot be unmixed.
Feedback: Systems often become chaotic when there is feedback present. A good example is the behavior of the stock market. As the value of a stock rises or falls, people are inclined to buy or sell that stock. This in turn further affects the price of the stock, causing it to rise or fall chaotically.
Fractals: A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems - the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc. [http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/]
Now let us take the Chaos principle to Washington and attempt to apply it to the Many Many Agencies and Departments or the Mega-Bureaucracy. Individuals with widely dispersed needs and goals are elected and sent to Represent [fiduciary] of the many citizens of their State or district. Now how can a Senator that comes from the BIG giant population concentration we call major CITIES be elected to by majority vote - 90% of the State is rural in nature.
By limiting the length of bill to 100 pages so all can read, understand, correct and contribute - Chaos has its place in the creative and productive process through unexpected discoveries, meetings and opportunities. This Chaos in a free society leads to harmony - How is it possible for the Senator to represent diametrically opposed needs, wants, and requirements to maintain liberty and freedom of property rights and ownership? So the Senator lives in a constant state of Chaos as pressures are applied at random - Financials in cities - highways in the rest of the State now throw in the Needs of the Agriculture, Timber and mining industries.
After the Legislatures have their fun creating laws, the bureaucracies jump in to define and build their kingdoms - Surely this chaos involves the Congress and making laws, then the Executive setting up and staffing requirements to put the law into effect - the new Staff now must read the law and try to determine what Congress really intended.
The same limits on rules and regulations should apply to the bureaucracies. Most laws should never be enforced by the central government - After this has some level of understanding the Agency must write Rules and Regulations [details fleshing out the law].
The lobbyist has a vital function in creating awareness of needs in community and commerce. The lobbyist’s role would be more productive if they were attuned to subsidiarity and solidarity - It is here that 13,000 lobbyist exert more stress to the situation . . most likely the Lobbyist wrote at least parts of the law so now the interests switch to making sure the Agency does not wonder off the reservation. All are pulled by what the appointed Agency head that the Executive picked now brings to the process.
Again – sending out agents to eat out the people’s substance (DOI) These agencies should not even exist – if only for 2 reasons – it costs twice as much in tax dollars and borrowings to run from DC vs the state capital; and three times as much as performed by community services – churches and service organizations. - Then they must form committees in Congress to oversee the agency which means that they must have a sub-committee for each sub agency formed by the Agency, Now we have the people that are effected by the law, rules and regulations starting to see that it is a disaster for them. If they cannot exert power over the agency they must seek relief in the Courts.
Select Privilege - Courts are very slow in many instances - if you win the first level and can not secure a hold on the law going into effect then one must operate under it until they hopefully gain relief at the Appeals level, most likely it will then go to the Supreme Court. During this time the entire industry might have operated under alternating rules = true chaos.
Sending out agents to eat out the people’s substance (DOI) Violation of States rights - Next the Federal chaos might be challenged by the States Attorney Generals . . again differing findings in different States will force a unlimited set of rules and regulations. Now if States prevail the Federal Attorney General might decide to challenge the Courts results such as happened in the State of Texas. The Supreme Court invalidated parts of the voters rights bills and AG Holder has sued to stop the law.
Violates Subsidiarity - Texas had a requirement that each voter had to have State approved picture ID to vote. The Supreme Court said this was a permitted State power. Also the AG had the right to review and reject the Congressional district design so the party in power could force redesigns that benefited their party. Well the SC approved the States map as the Republicans desired, now the AG has gone to court to stop that under the anti discrimination act.
Money is the master, not the servant - Lastly let us look at the Federal Reserve law and how it is managed by Congress in the Senate and House banking committees - yes I said committees and there are many so more can serve on the MONEY/POWER committees. The Fed is Owned by the Federal Treasury - a Board of governors are appointed by the Executive and they set the open market policies. The Congress created the Fed so they do have power over them and they have the ability to require the Fed to pay the PROFITS EARNED BY THE FED DURING THE YEAR . once a year the Congress instruct the Fed to pay those PROFITS to the Treasurer - the Congress owns and manages a sole source Bank . .
The Chaos of the streets removes responsibility as the perps ravage and burn - More chaos created by Congress so they could hide from financial decisions that have negative effects on the economy - nope not my fault voters it is that Independent Fed that the President manages through the Treasury Department that cost you your money and your property.
Thank you for your patience to get through all this chaos and my God it is only the tip of Mountain top called an island in the deep deep deep political seas.....
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/ cl/ MC and Wild Vortex
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #16 – Part 2
THE CHAOS SERIES
CHAOS AND SUB-SOIL
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America.
Beautiful Chaos in a Fractal Pattern
fractal (frktl)
A complex geometric pattern exhibiting self-similarity in that small details of its structure viewed at any scale repeat elements of the overall pattern. See more at chaos.
*Fractals are often associated with recursive operations on shapes or sets of numbers, in which the result of the operation is used as the input to the same operation, repeating the process indefinitely. The operations themselves are usually very simple, but the resulting shapes or sets are often dramatic and complex, with interesting properties.
CHAOS AND SUB-SOIL
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America.
Beautiful Chaos in a Fractal Pattern
fractal (frktl)
A complex geometric pattern exhibiting self-similarity in that small details of its structure viewed at any scale repeat elements of the overall pattern. See more at chaos.
*Fractals are often associated with recursive operations on shapes or sets of numbers, in which the result of the operation is used as the input to the same operation, repeating the process indefinitely. The operations themselves are usually very simple, but the resulting shapes or sets are often dramatic and complex, with interesting properties.
|
Chaos and Subsoil
Is there a better way to do the people’s business in commerce, legislation, education, bureaucracy and even religion in a Constitutional Republic? |
Tom White of the New York Times
You are about to explore how sausages could be made in the political arena and the way they affect our lives… no disrespect to the wurstmeisters of the real sausage business. Before the sausage ingredients are ready to mix and be stuffed into the edible tubing of society, they must be grown on or in suitable soil. Its quality is in its savory simplicity. Lawmaking and bureaucracy have formed into hardpan on the topsoil. It clogs real growth and the health of the lives that draw from its riches. Bureaucrats trapped in the mess and the spices of ingenuity that make wonderful sausage lose their flavor and are of no use but to drain a nation’s wealth.
The topsoil of the legislative and bureaucratic process has become impervious to common sense and the greater good. The roots of freedom and rain from above cannot penetrate to the deep subsoil. Beauty and grandeur are washed away in the storm of daily routines to create a spiritual wasteland.
Modern spiritual warfare has its foundations in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” political correctness and misguided social justice that has led to broad dependency and loss of incentive. It is time to reach down into our rich and deep founding subsoil, based in the trinity of the Chaos of human interaction; Subsidiarity of personal responsibility, and the Solidarity of “e pluribus unum.”
Beautiful Chaos in a Fractal Pattern
Chaos - Chaos is not disorder unless it is formed to goad the ignorant into rioting in the streets, usually burning and pillaging the visions and labor of others. The beautiful freely formed fractals of natural Chaos as in nature, makes a free society work by creating infinite beauty, opportunities for new relationships, ventures and true diversity based on our individual endowments from God.
Subsidiarity - The foundation of subsidiarity is personal responsibility burned into the mind and heart of the individual. It is the opposite of “entitlement” that stands as an obstacle to those up the hierarchy (every network needs a hierarchy) who strive to “help by dominating” rather than to “serve and exhort” a person to pursue his or her visions and meet life challenges. Help when needed must come from the bottom up – the family, community, state and finally the central government. This is a serious difficulty for the politically correct and misguided social justice schemes where the aim is long term “top down” control.
Solidarity - A nation of free men and women working together are seen as having solidarity. A mob of demonstrators chanting Marxist or theocratic slogans and fouling the peaceful environment can also be seen as having solidarity. Free people have a choice. Subjugated people swarm the streets, demanding equal justice often at the goading of despots. We must discern the difference between diversity of gifts and diversity of division.
Real diversity is in the chaos of free interchange of ideas and services that are allowed to grow, stumble along, succeed or fail; subsidiarity has assured the broadest venue for one’s gifts, talents and dreams. It works best when optimized in the solidarity of a free people unfettered by the mediocrity or dominance of the mob. Forced into dependency, many are easily led by the political despot, the corrupt employer, union boss or the entrenched self-serving bureaucrat in the fields of labor, health, education and welfare and even religion. Every day is renewal day. Every day we are called to serve God and one another.
Soil Profile
The ideal combination of subsidiarity and solidarity should be called “Subsoil”_ - a simple derivation of these two complicated sounding principles create a solid moral, ethical, spiritual and philosophical foundation for human discourse, development and commerce. The topsoil is of human creativity and freedom of action and interaction. It is the foundation for lasting success and societal stability. Topsoil can be blown away. Like the Declaration of Independence, it projects both the endowment by our Creator and the misdeeds of the king and his satraps who are sent to “eat out the people’s substance.” It is a place of struggle to maintain a balance of personal responsibility and our eternal gifts and talents with the need to interact with others in a unified nation.
Simple ways to draw from subsoil…
Lawmaking and bureaucracy must incorporate Subsoil into the conception, design and government operations to preserve the American Way of Life. Four important questions must be asked, truthfully answered and applied with integrity:
Will this new law help or hurt initiative or personal responsibility? Is it an entitlement, or will people be challenged and motivated to exceed the law’s intended goals? Are the people allowed to do their best when challenged?
Does the legislation or the bureaucracy it authorizes benefit the wider community without focusing on special interest groups save for specific needs of the helpless. (We’re all needy – we’re not all helpless!)?
Will this legislation put people or regions in a box? Are individual and community initiative and uniqueness subordinated to a rigid plan for central control through taxes and financial manipulation or bureaucratic overreach?
Will the legislation require major government oversight or will it encourage and maximize private enterprise and employment? Personal involvement with open opportunities leads to the development of individual gifts and talents and from these, new technologies, industries and services.
We elect representatives in this Constitutional Republic to carry out the messy business of legislation. The process creates ever growing and overlapping bureaucracies that have become the fourth and dominant branch of government. I believe that if we took the above guidelines seriously, we would readily fulfill the optimal requirement for Subsoil – the combination of subsidiarity and solidarity. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education are two good places to start the process. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and political correctness must end up on the trash heap of history.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/ cl/ MC and Wild Vortex
You are about to explore how sausages could be made in the political arena and the way they affect our lives… no disrespect to the wurstmeisters of the real sausage business. Before the sausage ingredients are ready to mix and be stuffed into the edible tubing of society, they must be grown on or in suitable soil. Its quality is in its savory simplicity. Lawmaking and bureaucracy have formed into hardpan on the topsoil. It clogs real growth and the health of the lives that draw from its riches. Bureaucrats trapped in the mess and the spices of ingenuity that make wonderful sausage lose their flavor and are of no use but to drain a nation’s wealth.
The topsoil of the legislative and bureaucratic process has become impervious to common sense and the greater good. The roots of freedom and rain from above cannot penetrate to the deep subsoil. Beauty and grandeur are washed away in the storm of daily routines to create a spiritual wasteland.
Modern spiritual warfare has its foundations in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” political correctness and misguided social justice that has led to broad dependency and loss of incentive. It is time to reach down into our rich and deep founding subsoil, based in the trinity of the Chaos of human interaction; Subsidiarity of personal responsibility, and the Solidarity of “e pluribus unum.”
Beautiful Chaos in a Fractal Pattern
Chaos - Chaos is not disorder unless it is formed to goad the ignorant into rioting in the streets, usually burning and pillaging the visions and labor of others. The beautiful freely formed fractals of natural Chaos as in nature, makes a free society work by creating infinite beauty, opportunities for new relationships, ventures and true diversity based on our individual endowments from God.
Subsidiarity - The foundation of subsidiarity is personal responsibility burned into the mind and heart of the individual. It is the opposite of “entitlement” that stands as an obstacle to those up the hierarchy (every network needs a hierarchy) who strive to “help by dominating” rather than to “serve and exhort” a person to pursue his or her visions and meet life challenges. Help when needed must come from the bottom up – the family, community, state and finally the central government. This is a serious difficulty for the politically correct and misguided social justice schemes where the aim is long term “top down” control.
Solidarity - A nation of free men and women working together are seen as having solidarity. A mob of demonstrators chanting Marxist or theocratic slogans and fouling the peaceful environment can also be seen as having solidarity. Free people have a choice. Subjugated people swarm the streets, demanding equal justice often at the goading of despots. We must discern the difference between diversity of gifts and diversity of division.
Real diversity is in the chaos of free interchange of ideas and services that are allowed to grow, stumble along, succeed or fail; subsidiarity has assured the broadest venue for one’s gifts, talents and dreams. It works best when optimized in the solidarity of a free people unfettered by the mediocrity or dominance of the mob. Forced into dependency, many are easily led by the political despot, the corrupt employer, union boss or the entrenched self-serving bureaucrat in the fields of labor, health, education and welfare and even religion. Every day is renewal day. Every day we are called to serve God and one another.
Soil Profile
The ideal combination of subsidiarity and solidarity should be called “Subsoil”_ - a simple derivation of these two complicated sounding principles create a solid moral, ethical, spiritual and philosophical foundation for human discourse, development and commerce. The topsoil is of human creativity and freedom of action and interaction. It is the foundation for lasting success and societal stability. Topsoil can be blown away. Like the Declaration of Independence, it projects both the endowment by our Creator and the misdeeds of the king and his satraps who are sent to “eat out the people’s substance.” It is a place of struggle to maintain a balance of personal responsibility and our eternal gifts and talents with the need to interact with others in a unified nation.
Simple ways to draw from subsoil…
Lawmaking and bureaucracy must incorporate Subsoil into the conception, design and government operations to preserve the American Way of Life. Four important questions must be asked, truthfully answered and applied with integrity:
Will this new law help or hurt initiative or personal responsibility? Is it an entitlement, or will people be challenged and motivated to exceed the law’s intended goals? Are the people allowed to do their best when challenged?
Does the legislation or the bureaucracy it authorizes benefit the wider community without focusing on special interest groups save for specific needs of the helpless. (We’re all needy – we’re not all helpless!)?
Will this legislation put people or regions in a box? Are individual and community initiative and uniqueness subordinated to a rigid plan for central control through taxes and financial manipulation or bureaucratic overreach?
Will the legislation require major government oversight or will it encourage and maximize private enterprise and employment? Personal involvement with open opportunities leads to the development of individual gifts and talents and from these, new technologies, industries and services.
We elect representatives in this Constitutional Republic to carry out the messy business of legislation. The process creates ever growing and overlapping bureaucracies that have become the fourth and dominant branch of government. I believe that if we took the above guidelines seriously, we would readily fulfill the optimal requirement for Subsoil – the combination of subsidiarity and solidarity. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education are two good places to start the process. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and political correctness must end up on the trash heap of history.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/ cl/ MC and Wild Vortex
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #16 – Part 3
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America.
THE THEORY OF CHAOS BY DIVISION
"Compare society to a boat. Her progress through the water will not depend upon the exertion of her crew, but upon the exertion devoted to propelling her. This will be lessened by any expenditure of force in fighting among themselves, or in pulling in different directions." ~ Henry George
THE MOVEMENT IN CHAOTIC MOTION
I have been watching the 'movement' since 2009, and I see one thing that overrides everything else. Many groups with the best of intentions and patriotism doing the same things.....individually.
Consider this; The Opposition has continuously thrown out diverse issues as a tactic to diffuse our initiatives to restrain their usurpation's since we trashed them in the 2010 elections. The 'progressives' are consolidated into a confederation with a basic pool of resources and money that is carefully distributed to further their cause. They are unified and are almost in single lock step to bring about the total transformation of not only America but the rest of the world as well.
The opposition is much more organized, with fewer command structures if you want to call them that, directing the overall battle plan to destroy America. It's the oldest game in the book, a coordinated few can overcome an uncoordinated mass.
'Know your enemy", a saying derived from Sun Tzu's The Art of War. They are the community organizers-working as few they are effective as many. These are the concepts advanced from their standard play-book.
The First Rule of Power is: not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules, while you follow none.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It infuriates the opposition, who may then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your own people enjoy using.
The seventh rule is: Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, avoid protracted activty, employ quick strike and retreat tactics.
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all current events for your purpose, no matter how the facts may require manipulation.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the actuality.
The tenth rule: A major tactics is to maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and compelling enough, it will break through into its counterside; the principle that every positive has its negative-reversed.
The twelfth rule: Always have a constructive alternative prepared-a back-up proposal.
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
It is the IMPLIED DUTY of EVERY American Citizen to protect and defend the Constitution that we have agreed to live under. Those that would bring it down, or ignore its requirements, are in fact TRAITORS to America and her people. They should be dealt with accordingly by the legal system. Unfortunately, we have activist courts and activist judges that have been co-opted by 'progressive'-Socialist agenda too.
Make no mistake, the Conservatives - from moderate to hard right - are still the majority group in America. Maybe that's why it's so hard to coordinate our efforts. We are acting like fiercely passionate and independent units - instead of a directed and united force.
I ask myself, and I have asked many of these groups; Why??? Why do you separately insist on doing the same thing individually, and thus dilute your combined strengths? Like most of us, I get requests from several diverse groups to "burn up the Congressional phone lines", or to "fax your Senators on this issue or that one".
Fact; We have many Conservative and quasi-conservative groups out there who are all clamoring for more and more donations to fight off the progressive Agendas we are being saddled with. Doing this piecemeal does not have the same effect on our so called Representatives, because they see the efforts individually rather than as a true representation of the majority of Americans.
It is the fact, that you don't build a workable movement with a scatter-gun agenda. We need to agree on priorities - A united front to win the war and resolve our many diverse issues in the time of peace afterward concurrently. I am not denigrating the seriousness of each individual issue, and I am certainly not suggesting that they be abandoned, I see 'The Larger' need to do better.
Right now we are scattering our forces and our fortunes in a haphazard attempt to stop the highly united forces of the opposition. We don't have the monetary resources of the 'progressive' factions, we are proud to be grass-roots in the strengths we have achieved.
But those are also hard-earned resources, donated with conviction, from families and hard-working Americans who give, when it is a hardship to afford the donation. That is perhaps the most important reason why we need to stop squandering it on the duplication of our common cause and divided efforts. If we address the most important issues first, success of #1 will give momentum to #2 and then #3...on down the line.
Don't get me wrong, I am not campaigning for all of us to give up our individual pursuits and identities. I'm trying to get everyone to come together to set and agree on the absolute most critical priorities. Myopic vision will guarantee we will miss an important one-one we could all help to acheive.
I am not advocating that we should all become a Super Group and lose our individuality in it. I propose we take a page from our original Founding Fathers and form a Loose Confederacy with a single plan and agenda to wrest it from the hands of the Progressive Socialists, Restore the Republic as our immediate goal.
We can all make our own cause better, by focusing with absolute clarity on the issues that will hurt us all the most and most immediately. Just yesterday, I saw -- groups that were trying to promote the necessity to immediately confront; Agenda 21, Common Core, Immigration, Flat Tax, Open Shop, etc.
When the most immediate need was, for everyone involved in each, separate cause to stop what they were doing and ask their members to call Congress in protest over the defunding of the ACA. Create a United Front engaged in the immediate necessity and Common Effort. Just like firefighters attacking the hot-spots and the front line on the blaze-to eventually control and put out the whole fire.
Think of what the effect would be if every person on our side, moderate and hardline alike, took one issue at a time, and concentrated their efforts against, or for it, depending on what the issue was. Think of what impact it would have if everyone, I am also implying that even those who just sit back and let everyone else do it, could be motivated to that one issue at the same time, advancing the same concept, and actually working in concert towards that goal.
My cause may not be the first one on that priority list - but I will help another whose cause is-and when that is accomplished-we will all work together on down that list until it is mine, and then yours, and yours. That would seriously weaken our position and eventually lead to us losing the entire battle.
We need to agree to consolidate our forces and our assets and weld our varied groups into a concordat that can be wielded against the 'progressive' opposition using the same strength and force they use against us.
A WORTHY EFFORT AND HOPEFUL ACTION WHILE AVOIDING THE PITFALL OF ONE DIMENSION CHAOS
'A little more persistence, a little more effort, and what seemed hopeless failure may turn to glorious success.' ~ Elbert Hubbard
We Must commit to The War of Ideologies at the Ballot Box in 2014. It is A VITAL importance. YES, it will be a WAR. We can only win that War of Ideologies at the Ballot Box, not in the streets - Never in the streets. The left is slavering for us to try that so they can really crack down on and enslave us, it would be done as a deceit, for our own protection, of course. We cannot/and should not allow them that opportunity.
We need several things to happen soon:
1. We need all the help that a majority in numbers can deliver.
2. We need to use those majority of numbers to Dominate First and foremost, the Primary elections. Then we have to follow through to dominate the general election. We need to get the highest concentration of true conservatives into seats in Congress as fast as we can, and keep them there.
3. All the National Tea Parties and affiliated groups that are working individually to bring about a return to a true Republic must of necessity Join Forces and approach that goal through a simple direct plan that all groups can agree to, like taking over the Republican Party and stacking it with Conservatives, by throwing out all the RINOs and Establishment Professional Politicians. We also need to start stacking the Democratic Party with Conservatives whenever we can.
4. We need to rid the Congress of every single Democratic Socialist no matter which Party they are Hiding in, and keep them out of any semblance of political power at any level from Local on up to Federal. If we don't get rid of the Socialist influence soon, the Socialists will do what Nikita Kruschev said they would do, and bury us as a Capitalistic Free Nation.
5. We need all the State Coordinators for all the Tea Parties, and all affiliated or conservative groups to hold a summit within the next two months and forge a plan we can all work towards for the final victory. After that, we must put in place safeguards that will prevent the subtle takeover by nefarious forces for as long as the United States is in existence.
To truly make a difference in 2014 we must bring together every single person and group that objects to the Un-American, Un-Constitutional treatment that the Administration and the wimps in Congress has inflicted us with. We have to put our differences aside and Dominate the Primary and then the Election.
Set the standard that should save any incumbent's job. A long standing background of voting Constitutionally on all the issues set before them. Remember, the opposition has been organizing as focused lasers, since last November, when we first showed our unified power to stand against the oppressors and usurpers of Liberty.
We need to adopt that single focus for ourselves, and we need to do that quickly before it's too late to successfully oppose the Socialist takeover and remaking of America. We must also not refuse to face the reality that one more election may not achieve the political superiority we will need to reverse the downward spiral. We must commit to give our political process our best effort, but it can no longer be the only effort we trust to make the difference.
**************
THE CHAOS OF 'THE NOTHING CONVICTION'
'The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.' ~ Albert Einstein
We can no longer afford to be complacent and assume it will all work out positively in the end. The Cardinal Sin that over 75% of the population makes is that unforgivable sin of complacency. Unfortunately the progressives have trained and promoted that agenda to their own ends for generations, and it has worked for them famously.
I have heard that during the times at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, about 50% of the population stayed neutral until there was a clear cut victory by either side. That is happening now, with about the same percentages. If that continues, it will have disastrous results. In this fast paced age we have to block and eliminate the threats before they become the law of the Land, and are next to impossible to remove.
So, where do we stand? As I see it we have two choices.
Choice 1 we can lie down, roll over, and play dead by agreeing to every whim and happenstance of the current Administration. Letting the Greed of the out-of-control 'progressive' government we have now totally destroy our Country. Consider the Redistribution of the wealth agenda alone, as it continues-until those still working decide to stop, what will happen to the 'progressive' system? It and everything else dependent on our national stagnant economy will collapse.
We need to opt for Choice 2.
With Choice 2 we can band together like our Forefathers did during the Revolution. Like the Grand Army of the Republic did during the Civil War. Like our Grandfathers and Fathers did during both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the Mid-East conflicts. We must defend this Great Nation by Waging our own War, a peaceful and intelligent one.
The Cardinal Sin the 50%+ of the public makes is the unforgivable sin of Complacency. If that fact is not overcome soon it will be our and the Republic's Downfall. The 50%+ of the public that sits back and either refuses to or can't face the truth about what is happening are just as great a threat to America as those bent on making us a Socialist Nation.
We need to Join forces or Die like Benjamin Franklin warned the feuding Colonies. His sage advice is as valid today as it was then. After we take back the Republic we can iron out our differences. But we must take back and restore the Republic first!!!
Benjamin Franklin with his visual representation of a chopped up snake and the words "Join or Die" are as valid today as they were then, maybe even more so. If we don't join together into a cohesive force to defend the Constitutional principles we were entrusted with by the Founders, we will have no Constitutional Principles left to defend.
On dispersive ground, therefore, fight not.
On facile ground, halt not.
On contentious ground, attack not.
On open ground, do not try to block the enemy's way.
On the ground of intersecting highways, join hands with your allies.
On serious ground, gather in plunder.
In difficult ground, keep steadily on the march.
On hemmed-in ground, resort to stratagem.
On desperate ground, fight.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/ The Tradesman, lady boots
THE THEORY OF CHAOS BY DIVISION
"Compare society to a boat. Her progress through the water will not depend upon the exertion of her crew, but upon the exertion devoted to propelling her. This will be lessened by any expenditure of force in fighting among themselves, or in pulling in different directions." ~ Henry George
THE MOVEMENT IN CHAOTIC MOTION
I have been watching the 'movement' since 2009, and I see one thing that overrides everything else. Many groups with the best of intentions and patriotism doing the same things.....individually.
Consider this; The Opposition has continuously thrown out diverse issues as a tactic to diffuse our initiatives to restrain their usurpation's since we trashed them in the 2010 elections. The 'progressives' are consolidated into a confederation with a basic pool of resources and money that is carefully distributed to further their cause. They are unified and are almost in single lock step to bring about the total transformation of not only America but the rest of the world as well.
The opposition is much more organized, with fewer command structures if you want to call them that, directing the overall battle plan to destroy America. It's the oldest game in the book, a coordinated few can overcome an uncoordinated mass.
'Know your enemy", a saying derived from Sun Tzu's The Art of War. They are the community organizers-working as few they are effective as many. These are the concepts advanced from their standard play-book.
The First Rule of Power is: not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules, while you follow none.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It infuriates the opposition, who may then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your own people enjoy using.
The seventh rule is: Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, avoid protracted activty, employ quick strike and retreat tactics.
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all current events for your purpose, no matter how the facts may require manipulation.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the actuality.
The tenth rule: A major tactics is to maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and compelling enough, it will break through into its counterside; the principle that every positive has its negative-reversed.
The twelfth rule: Always have a constructive alternative prepared-a back-up proposal.
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
It is the IMPLIED DUTY of EVERY American Citizen to protect and defend the Constitution that we have agreed to live under. Those that would bring it down, or ignore its requirements, are in fact TRAITORS to America and her people. They should be dealt with accordingly by the legal system. Unfortunately, we have activist courts and activist judges that have been co-opted by 'progressive'-Socialist agenda too.
Make no mistake, the Conservatives - from moderate to hard right - are still the majority group in America. Maybe that's why it's so hard to coordinate our efforts. We are acting like fiercely passionate and independent units - instead of a directed and united force.
I ask myself, and I have asked many of these groups; Why??? Why do you separately insist on doing the same thing individually, and thus dilute your combined strengths? Like most of us, I get requests from several diverse groups to "burn up the Congressional phone lines", or to "fax your Senators on this issue or that one".
Fact; We have many Conservative and quasi-conservative groups out there who are all clamoring for more and more donations to fight off the progressive Agendas we are being saddled with. Doing this piecemeal does not have the same effect on our so called Representatives, because they see the efforts individually rather than as a true representation of the majority of Americans.
It is the fact, that you don't build a workable movement with a scatter-gun agenda. We need to agree on priorities - A united front to win the war and resolve our many diverse issues in the time of peace afterward concurrently. I am not denigrating the seriousness of each individual issue, and I am certainly not suggesting that they be abandoned, I see 'The Larger' need to do better.
Right now we are scattering our forces and our fortunes in a haphazard attempt to stop the highly united forces of the opposition. We don't have the monetary resources of the 'progressive' factions, we are proud to be grass-roots in the strengths we have achieved.
But those are also hard-earned resources, donated with conviction, from families and hard-working Americans who give, when it is a hardship to afford the donation. That is perhaps the most important reason why we need to stop squandering it on the duplication of our common cause and divided efforts. If we address the most important issues first, success of #1 will give momentum to #2 and then #3...on down the line.
Don't get me wrong, I am not campaigning for all of us to give up our individual pursuits and identities. I'm trying to get everyone to come together to set and agree on the absolute most critical priorities. Myopic vision will guarantee we will miss an important one-one we could all help to acheive.
I am not advocating that we should all become a Super Group and lose our individuality in it. I propose we take a page from our original Founding Fathers and form a Loose Confederacy with a single plan and agenda to wrest it from the hands of the Progressive Socialists, Restore the Republic as our immediate goal.
We can all make our own cause better, by focusing with absolute clarity on the issues that will hurt us all the most and most immediately. Just yesterday, I saw -- groups that were trying to promote the necessity to immediately confront; Agenda 21, Common Core, Immigration, Flat Tax, Open Shop, etc.
When the most immediate need was, for everyone involved in each, separate cause to stop what they were doing and ask their members to call Congress in protest over the defunding of the ACA. Create a United Front engaged in the immediate necessity and Common Effort. Just like firefighters attacking the hot-spots and the front line on the blaze-to eventually control and put out the whole fire.
Think of what the effect would be if every person on our side, moderate and hardline alike, took one issue at a time, and concentrated their efforts against, or for it, depending on what the issue was. Think of what impact it would have if everyone, I am also implying that even those who just sit back and let everyone else do it, could be motivated to that one issue at the same time, advancing the same concept, and actually working in concert towards that goal.
My cause may not be the first one on that priority list - but I will help another whose cause is-and when that is accomplished-we will all work together on down that list until it is mine, and then yours, and yours. That would seriously weaken our position and eventually lead to us losing the entire battle.
We need to agree to consolidate our forces and our assets and weld our varied groups into a concordat that can be wielded against the 'progressive' opposition using the same strength and force they use against us.
A WORTHY EFFORT AND HOPEFUL ACTION WHILE AVOIDING THE PITFALL OF ONE DIMENSION CHAOS
'A little more persistence, a little more effort, and what seemed hopeless failure may turn to glorious success.' ~ Elbert Hubbard
We Must commit to The War of Ideologies at the Ballot Box in 2014. It is A VITAL importance. YES, it will be a WAR. We can only win that War of Ideologies at the Ballot Box, not in the streets - Never in the streets. The left is slavering for us to try that so they can really crack down on and enslave us, it would be done as a deceit, for our own protection, of course. We cannot/and should not allow them that opportunity.
We need several things to happen soon:
1. We need all the help that a majority in numbers can deliver.
2. We need to use those majority of numbers to Dominate First and foremost, the Primary elections. Then we have to follow through to dominate the general election. We need to get the highest concentration of true conservatives into seats in Congress as fast as we can, and keep them there.
3. All the National Tea Parties and affiliated groups that are working individually to bring about a return to a true Republic must of necessity Join Forces and approach that goal through a simple direct plan that all groups can agree to, like taking over the Republican Party and stacking it with Conservatives, by throwing out all the RINOs and Establishment Professional Politicians. We also need to start stacking the Democratic Party with Conservatives whenever we can.
4. We need to rid the Congress of every single Democratic Socialist no matter which Party they are Hiding in, and keep them out of any semblance of political power at any level from Local on up to Federal. If we don't get rid of the Socialist influence soon, the Socialists will do what Nikita Kruschev said they would do, and bury us as a Capitalistic Free Nation.
5. We need all the State Coordinators for all the Tea Parties, and all affiliated or conservative groups to hold a summit within the next two months and forge a plan we can all work towards for the final victory. After that, we must put in place safeguards that will prevent the subtle takeover by nefarious forces for as long as the United States is in existence.
To truly make a difference in 2014 we must bring together every single person and group that objects to the Un-American, Un-Constitutional treatment that the Administration and the wimps in Congress has inflicted us with. We have to put our differences aside and Dominate the Primary and then the Election.
Set the standard that should save any incumbent's job. A long standing background of voting Constitutionally on all the issues set before them. Remember, the opposition has been organizing as focused lasers, since last November, when we first showed our unified power to stand against the oppressors and usurpers of Liberty.
We need to adopt that single focus for ourselves, and we need to do that quickly before it's too late to successfully oppose the Socialist takeover and remaking of America. We must also not refuse to face the reality that one more election may not achieve the political superiority we will need to reverse the downward spiral. We must commit to give our political process our best effort, but it can no longer be the only effort we trust to make the difference.
**************
THE CHAOS OF 'THE NOTHING CONVICTION'
'The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.' ~ Albert Einstein
We can no longer afford to be complacent and assume it will all work out positively in the end. The Cardinal Sin that over 75% of the population makes is that unforgivable sin of complacency. Unfortunately the progressives have trained and promoted that agenda to their own ends for generations, and it has worked for them famously.
I have heard that during the times at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, about 50% of the population stayed neutral until there was a clear cut victory by either side. That is happening now, with about the same percentages. If that continues, it will have disastrous results. In this fast paced age we have to block and eliminate the threats before they become the law of the Land, and are next to impossible to remove.
So, where do we stand? As I see it we have two choices.
Choice 1 we can lie down, roll over, and play dead by agreeing to every whim and happenstance of the current Administration. Letting the Greed of the out-of-control 'progressive' government we have now totally destroy our Country. Consider the Redistribution of the wealth agenda alone, as it continues-until those still working decide to stop, what will happen to the 'progressive' system? It and everything else dependent on our national stagnant economy will collapse.
We need to opt for Choice 2.
With Choice 2 we can band together like our Forefathers did during the Revolution. Like the Grand Army of the Republic did during the Civil War. Like our Grandfathers and Fathers did during both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the Mid-East conflicts. We must defend this Great Nation by Waging our own War, a peaceful and intelligent one.
The Cardinal Sin the 50%+ of the public makes is the unforgivable sin of Complacency. If that fact is not overcome soon it will be our and the Republic's Downfall. The 50%+ of the public that sits back and either refuses to or can't face the truth about what is happening are just as great a threat to America as those bent on making us a Socialist Nation.
We need to Join forces or Die like Benjamin Franklin warned the feuding Colonies. His sage advice is as valid today as it was then. After we take back the Republic we can iron out our differences. But we must take back and restore the Republic first!!!
Benjamin Franklin with his visual representation of a chopped up snake and the words "Join or Die" are as valid today as they were then, maybe even more so. If we don't join together into a cohesive force to defend the Constitutional principles we were entrusted with by the Founders, we will have no Constitutional Principles left to defend.
On dispersive ground, therefore, fight not.
On facile ground, halt not.
On contentious ground, attack not.
On open ground, do not try to block the enemy's way.
On the ground of intersecting highways, join hands with your allies.
On serious ground, gather in plunder.
In difficult ground, keep steadily on the march.
On hemmed-in ground, resort to stratagem.
On desperate ground, fight.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/ The Tradesman, lady boots
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #16 - Part 4
THE THEORIES SERIES
THE CHAOS OF DIVISION REVISIONED
Reunion and ReUnion
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
Reunion and ReUnion!
We’ve heard meaningless political slogans like “Hope and Change” over the years that have aroused cheers of the ignorant and misinformed that have sent our country into a tailspin. This time, a one word slogan – “Reunion” takes on a real and substantive meaning. I see a Reunion with our Founding principles and the God to whom they are credited. I see a ReUnion of unions into their original purpose as servants to their membership and stewards of the responsibilities of employment.
Over the years the best intentions of social reformers, religious and labor leaders and political visionaries tend to become blurred and even perverted. I was a co-founder of our local Gleaners organization that after 21 years still distributes millions of pounds of food through churches and non-profits to meet the needs of the community’s helpless. We adopted an illustration from my Bible of “Ruth Gleaning in Boaz’ Field” as the Gleaners’ logo. A few years ago, the Gleaners moved to a new facility. A friend of mine, named California Art Teacher of the Year volunteered to paint a mural on the face of the new building. It turned out to be a woman holding a horn of food spilling out – “The Goddess of Plenty!” That was a long way from Ruth and Boaz, progenitors of Jesus morphed into a pagan goddess! Blurred vision happens, to churches, unions, foundations, corporations, family businesses, charitable and fraternal groups and even constitutional republics.
I remember during the Carter Administration, Paul Volcker was Chairman of the Federal Reserve. In order to control inflation, he pushed interest rates to stratospheric levels. Home mortgages approached 18%, making it impossible for a young couple to buy a home on the husband’s income. It brought about all kinds of social change – from no fault divorce, to abortion on demand to government day care centers to federal education and increases in the minimum wage – the unmitigated disaster we live with today. The auto industry was forced to retool to smaller cars while paying for high rate 9-12% loans. In the meantime, the Japanese were creating their now dominant auto industry while financing at 2-3%. Detroit wasn’t just a victim of union thuggery and political corruption.
With home ownership out of reach, apartment construction skyrocketed while investors snatched up entry level homes usually purchased by young couples. That year, the National Association of Realtors in DC – where else? – honored Volcker with its Golden Eagle Award for meritorious service to the country. I had a few choice words for Mr. Carlson, then President of NAR. I’ve been suspicious of National Associations of Anything ever since!
There is much to be said about the love of money being the root of all kinds of evil. Money isn’t evil – it is first and foremost a medium of exchange that makes trade, commerce and daily life workable. It is the manipulation of money – whether by taxation, interest rates and fees or speculation and hedging that evil becomes dominant – the master rather than the servant. It is common knowledge among social planners that one way to bring about societal change is to manipulate - usually by raising interest rates and taxes. These take money out of circulation to be applied to non-productive elements to be recirculated as debt - whether by high interest loans or money borrowed into existence by the Federal Government. This drives up the national debt and raises prices – which are actually the reduction in the value of the dollar. This explains why a loaf of bread that once cost 10 cents is now $4!
This squeezing has a direct effect on business, on jobs, on the cost of living and on stresses in family life. It causes unions to demand increases in the minimum wage which has the secondary effect of their demands for higher wages to stay above the minimum. It gives the central government the opportunity to undermine family, community and states rights by offering Federal bailouts, loans and taking over services that are properly the venue of local and state entities.
Perhaps its time for a “Reunion” with our principles, visions and dreams, This includes a “ReUnion” of the trades and skills that can benefit from a new approach to such associations. It is a series of Causes and Effects – one thing leads to another.
First, let’s take a look at where we are today. The three groupings below come from my recently discovered Social Justice Theory of Relativity, a subset of my Political Theory of Relativity. They attempt to define how we Think, Act and Operate. The first table shows what has happened as we allowed our little world to be turned upside down.
THE CHAOS OF DIVISION REVISIONED
Reunion and ReUnion
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
Reunion and ReUnion!
We’ve heard meaningless political slogans like “Hope and Change” over the years that have aroused cheers of the ignorant and misinformed that have sent our country into a tailspin. This time, a one word slogan – “Reunion” takes on a real and substantive meaning. I see a Reunion with our Founding principles and the God to whom they are credited. I see a ReUnion of unions into their original purpose as servants to their membership and stewards of the responsibilities of employment.
Over the years the best intentions of social reformers, religious and labor leaders and political visionaries tend to become blurred and even perverted. I was a co-founder of our local Gleaners organization that after 21 years still distributes millions of pounds of food through churches and non-profits to meet the needs of the community’s helpless. We adopted an illustration from my Bible of “Ruth Gleaning in Boaz’ Field” as the Gleaners’ logo. A few years ago, the Gleaners moved to a new facility. A friend of mine, named California Art Teacher of the Year volunteered to paint a mural on the face of the new building. It turned out to be a woman holding a horn of food spilling out – “The Goddess of Plenty!” That was a long way from Ruth and Boaz, progenitors of Jesus morphed into a pagan goddess! Blurred vision happens, to churches, unions, foundations, corporations, family businesses, charitable and fraternal groups and even constitutional republics.
I remember during the Carter Administration, Paul Volcker was Chairman of the Federal Reserve. In order to control inflation, he pushed interest rates to stratospheric levels. Home mortgages approached 18%, making it impossible for a young couple to buy a home on the husband’s income. It brought about all kinds of social change – from no fault divorce, to abortion on demand to government day care centers to federal education and increases in the minimum wage – the unmitigated disaster we live with today. The auto industry was forced to retool to smaller cars while paying for high rate 9-12% loans. In the meantime, the Japanese were creating their now dominant auto industry while financing at 2-3%. Detroit wasn’t just a victim of union thuggery and political corruption.
With home ownership out of reach, apartment construction skyrocketed while investors snatched up entry level homes usually purchased by young couples. That year, the National Association of Realtors in DC – where else? – honored Volcker with its Golden Eagle Award for meritorious service to the country. I had a few choice words for Mr. Carlson, then President of NAR. I’ve been suspicious of National Associations of Anything ever since!
There is much to be said about the love of money being the root of all kinds of evil. Money isn’t evil – it is first and foremost a medium of exchange that makes trade, commerce and daily life workable. It is the manipulation of money – whether by taxation, interest rates and fees or speculation and hedging that evil becomes dominant – the master rather than the servant. It is common knowledge among social planners that one way to bring about societal change is to manipulate - usually by raising interest rates and taxes. These take money out of circulation to be applied to non-productive elements to be recirculated as debt - whether by high interest loans or money borrowed into existence by the Federal Government. This drives up the national debt and raises prices – which are actually the reduction in the value of the dollar. This explains why a loaf of bread that once cost 10 cents is now $4!
This squeezing has a direct effect on business, on jobs, on the cost of living and on stresses in family life. It causes unions to demand increases in the minimum wage which has the secondary effect of their demands for higher wages to stay above the minimum. It gives the central government the opportunity to undermine family, community and states rights by offering Federal bailouts, loans and taking over services that are properly the venue of local and state entities.
Perhaps its time for a “Reunion” with our principles, visions and dreams, This includes a “ReUnion” of the trades and skills that can benefit from a new approach to such associations. It is a series of Causes and Effects – one thing leads to another.
First, let’s take a look at where we are today. The three groupings below come from my recently discovered Social Justice Theory of Relativity, a subset of my Political Theory of Relativity. They attempt to define how we Think, Act and Operate. The first table shows what has happened as we allowed our little world to be turned upside down.
Read and Follow from Top Down (Cause and Effect)
Social Justice Trickle Down OuthouseFinance - demanding government funds to carry out often dubious works in health, education and welfare. Manipulation of rates and taxes to fund demands and speculations.
_________________________________________________________ High Tech serves social justice by demeaning human dignity, population control, dominance over others, spying on normal citizens. _________________________________________________________ High Touch is Godless compassion ill-applied by breaking down families, children torn from homes. No moral or ethical limits; no sense of propriety. _________________________________________________________ Chaos results when people are impoverished and prevented from exploiting their own dreams and talents to meet the demands of government agents protecting their dependency turf. Solidarity of the streets produces corruption in league with corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. Without hope they neglect even their basic needs waiting for help. Entitlement – the opposite of subsidiarity, is acquired by the willingness of those who dominate health, education and welfare agencies for power. _________________________________________________________ Faulty Logic that supports despotism and dependency is applied through attack systems such as “Rules for Radicals” with complicit 4th Estate support. _________________________________________________________ Ethics are based on false compassion to destroy initiative and drive while enthroning actions contrary to natural and moral laws. _________________________________________________________ Beauty is lost in a sewer of depravity and poverty that prevents full employment of the broadest range of human talent in the arts, sciences, trades, yielding ugly products and structures – and a culture of death. _________________________________________________________ |
The Chaos of Dis-UnionWinston Churchill once asked, “Can a people tax themselves into prosperity?” His response: “Can a man stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle?” Technology advancements have managed to keep employment levels high and soft business opportunities at a level that few notice the disappearance of skilled labor and technical jobs – equally important to information and formal education skills. With so much attention paid to putting out “schlock and box” products and structures with faux décor, artistic and craftsman skills are also lost. The lowest skill and intellectual levels revel in a good job keeping everything shiny and clean. All meaningful work has human dignity attached at any level. _______________________________________________________ The sins of monetary manipulation only temporarily enrich the speculator. The small businessman, the clerk, housewife, old couples trying to survive on a fixed income all suffer because they are forced to pay tribute to the manipulator.. Younger people become frustrated and angry. They also become the fodder of tyrants as they organize protests and are forced to wage war. They are either goaded to riot in the streets, destroying the lives and works of others, or are soothed by free stuff to keep them dependent while the speculators play. It’s called “entitlement.” _______________________________________________________ It is in the interest of those who control rates and taxes to keep the natives from getting too restless. Setting up straw dogs of us vs. them. By pointing out the “bad guys” but short of tearing them limb from limb, the promise of goodies, EBT cards, rent assistance, free tuition and medical tends to tamp down ambition and make them controllable. The dependents are placated by sports and ever more sleazy entertainment until the society becomes a sewer of debt and depravity. With depravity naturally comes a full blown Culture of Death. The other half of this death culture is jihadist Islam. _______________________________________________________ |
How we Think, Act and Operate in a Free Society
These consist of the same elements as the outhouse, but reversed in order of causes and effects. Our upside down world turned right side up! Who’d have thought we could define ourselves and our world views so simply? The challenge is not in massive re-education, but in conversion to renewed faith in our original Representative Constitutional Republic under God. “Under God” includes freedom of religion. In a nation 80% or more Christian, its greatest testimony is room for the beliefs of others – whether Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or even Muslim. Such reciprocity is not available in many nations, especially those under Muslim Rule or domestically those of “progressive” bent who tend to be blind to the things of the spirit – leaving them open to lies and deceit.
Freedom and Christianity go hand in hand or true Christianity is not being practiced. The price of freedom is certainly eternal vigilance. As seen from the Social Justice outhouse described already, even a free and ostensibly religious people can sell their souls for a mess of pottage, freebies and depravity and call it social justice. It is certainly time for a widespread Reunion!
As the Industrial Revolution gained momentum through the 19th Century, working men were drawn away from artisanship and agrarian labor to those of the factory. The skills carefully and patiently developed on the farm and in the guilds fell away to where too many masters treated their workers as slaves doing repetitive, mind numbing work. This gave rise to the union movement over riots and bloodshed. Socialists and communists pretending to care for the workers demanded the end of private property. If the worker isn’t poor from slave wages and working conditions, he is buried in usury. Pope Leo XIII in 1891 opened the door for labor-management relations in his encyclical Rerum Novarum - Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor : http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
Industrial and trade unions have done much to improve working conditions and establishing reasonable working hours. At the same time they have had an unsavory history of leveling the playing field for the most sluggish of their members. An enthusiastic worker is cajoled into slowing down so as not to eat up the job. One who has entrepreneurial dreams is either put down or drummed out of the union often creating an adversarial relationship with the employers who provided the job opportunities. Thankfully there are exceptions. The late John Lencioni of Bakersfield’s Columbo Construction knew how to draw the best from the trade unions that worked his jobs.
ReUnion
The ReUnion must add to the union movement’s solidarity the idea of personal responsibility – the elimination of entitlement in favor of subsidiarity. Unions, by following the combined principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, instead of solidarity alone will find they will be back in the business of selecting, training, disciplining and drawing the best out of their members. They will advocate increased pay goes to those who earn it, not the collective that falls to the lowest common denominator. The union will establish a partnership with the employer that recognizes the firm must prosper or the jobs are lost. If labor and management are both pulling the wagon in the same direction, all will prosper. The only thing a union should have to sell is providing the best trained hardest working most skilled employees. It does so by restructuring the old guild system and weeding out members who refuse to meet agreed standards while improving their skills.
Unions once made big money with their health care programs by developing health care with insurance companies and retailing them to the members. Unions could work with employers and local healthcare entities – clinics, hospitals, medical practitioners of all specialties, avoiding any government intrusion in the management and policies of their systems. By keeping day to day health services local and attuned to the community, costs will be controlled and more effective. The international union could be a coordinator - say like the NFL and maybe the co-carrier with major insurance companies of catastrophic care coverage. This would acknowledge subsidiarity/solidarity.
See 57. and 58. in Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical “Caritas in veritate” which means Charity in truth. The Church is seeing the seeming inevitable trend to globalization. The Pope addresses the issue knowing the plans of the globalizers have no concern for subsidiarity. If anything, they hope to see an 80% reduction in human population by any means. This is one area they don’t seek participation at the receiving end.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html#top
Here is a portion of 57 & 58: “…Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way[138], if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.
58. The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need. This general rule must also be taken broadly into consideration when addressing issues concerning international development aid. Such aid, whatever the donors' intentions, can sometimes lock people into a state of dependence and even foster situations of localized oppression and exploitation in the receiving country.
Read and Follow from Top Down (Cause and Effect)
These consist of the same elements as the outhouse, but reversed in order of causes and effects. Our upside down world turned right side up! Who’d have thought we could define ourselves and our world views so simply? The challenge is not in massive re-education, but in conversion to renewed faith in our original Representative Constitutional Republic under God. “Under God” includes freedom of religion. In a nation 80% or more Christian, its greatest testimony is room for the beliefs of others – whether Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or even Muslim. Such reciprocity is not available in many nations, especially those under Muslim Rule or domestically those of “progressive” bent who tend to be blind to the things of the spirit – leaving them open to lies and deceit.
Freedom and Christianity go hand in hand or true Christianity is not being practiced. The price of freedom is certainly eternal vigilance. As seen from the Social Justice outhouse described already, even a free and ostensibly religious people can sell their souls for a mess of pottage, freebies and depravity and call it social justice. It is certainly time for a widespread Reunion!
As the Industrial Revolution gained momentum through the 19th Century, working men were drawn away from artisanship and agrarian labor to those of the factory. The skills carefully and patiently developed on the farm and in the guilds fell away to where too many masters treated their workers as slaves doing repetitive, mind numbing work. This gave rise to the union movement over riots and bloodshed. Socialists and communists pretending to care for the workers demanded the end of private property. If the worker isn’t poor from slave wages and working conditions, he is buried in usury. Pope Leo XIII in 1891 opened the door for labor-management relations in his encyclical Rerum Novarum - Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor : http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
Industrial and trade unions have done much to improve working conditions and establishing reasonable working hours. At the same time they have had an unsavory history of leveling the playing field for the most sluggish of their members. An enthusiastic worker is cajoled into slowing down so as not to eat up the job. One who has entrepreneurial dreams is either put down or drummed out of the union often creating an adversarial relationship with the employers who provided the job opportunities. Thankfully there are exceptions. The late John Lencioni of Bakersfield’s Columbo Construction knew how to draw the best from the trade unions that worked his jobs.
ReUnion
The ReUnion must add to the union movement’s solidarity the idea of personal responsibility – the elimination of entitlement in favor of subsidiarity. Unions, by following the combined principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, instead of solidarity alone will find they will be back in the business of selecting, training, disciplining and drawing the best out of their members. They will advocate increased pay goes to those who earn it, not the collective that falls to the lowest common denominator. The union will establish a partnership with the employer that recognizes the firm must prosper or the jobs are lost. If labor and management are both pulling the wagon in the same direction, all will prosper. The only thing a union should have to sell is providing the best trained hardest working most skilled employees. It does so by restructuring the old guild system and weeding out members who refuse to meet agreed standards while improving their skills.
Unions once made big money with their health care programs by developing health care with insurance companies and retailing them to the members. Unions could work with employers and local healthcare entities – clinics, hospitals, medical practitioners of all specialties, avoiding any government intrusion in the management and policies of their systems. By keeping day to day health services local and attuned to the community, costs will be controlled and more effective. The international union could be a coordinator - say like the NFL and maybe the co-carrier with major insurance companies of catastrophic care coverage. This would acknowledge subsidiarity/solidarity.
See 57. and 58. in Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical “Caritas in veritate” which means Charity in truth. The Church is seeing the seeming inevitable trend to globalization. The Pope addresses the issue knowing the plans of the globalizers have no concern for subsidiarity. If anything, they hope to see an 80% reduction in human population by any means. This is one area they don’t seek participation at the receiving end.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html#top
Here is a portion of 57 & 58: “…Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way[138], if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.
58. The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need. This general rule must also be taken broadly into consideration when addressing issues concerning international development aid. Such aid, whatever the donors' intentions, can sometimes lock people into a state of dependence and even foster situations of localized oppression and exploitation in the receiving country.
Read and Follow from Top Down (Cause and Effect)
Shower of Mercy in a Free SocietyBeauty and its Author are the first priority that set the tone for all that follows – The Declaration of Independence.
_________________________________________________________ Ethics are defined to protect and promote Beauty among a free people and all who desire it for their nations – The Constitution of the United States. _________________________________________________________ Logic draws on multiple inferences to prove its veracity to support and protect Ethics and therefore Beauty. – The Bill of Rights. _________________________________________________________ Subsidiarity – the opposite of Entitlement flows naturally from a Beautiful, Ethical and Logical setting. People willingly take on personal responsibility and feel shame in accepting government dependency. Solidarity is a natural result flowing from a people free to exercise their talents and abilities in an environment that gives pride in one’s community and nation. _________________________________________________________ Chaos in a free society is unexpected opportunities, chance meeting, cross fertilization of ideas and technology from which lives grow and prosper. _________________________________________________________ High Touch is Faith in a natural outflow of the creative mind, drawing on skills and resources to add beauty to art, architecture, landscape and infrastructure. _________________________________________________________ High Technology – Science in the free flow of ideas and ability to exploit natural and human resources yields great fruit and broadened prosperity for all. _________________________________________________________ High Finance is based on money as a medium of exchange – the servant not the master. Those with wealth – earned or attained – exercise the Beatitude of “Poor in spirit” toward others in need or opportunity. _________________________________________________________ |
ReunionLove is both beautiful and tough. Our Founders, in drafting the Declaration of Independence set the beautiful moral, spiritual and philosophical foundations of the new republic. We have inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness endowed by our Creator. We also must be aware of the Founders’ litany of wrongs despots always deliver on the people they rule. These wrongs were listed for a reason that should be clear today.
The Beauty of the Declaration, Ethics in the Constitution and Logic in the Protections found in the Bill of Rights were prioritized by American Philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce long after the Founders codified it in the proper order. Right order works! We’ve proved it in spite of tireless efforts to undermine it by the ignorant and the arrogant. Time to take it back! _______________________________________________________ American settlers – most all from distant countries were a determined lot. Self assured, goal oriented and ready to accept full responsibility for their actions yielded a great country that very quickly became an international force to be reckoned with. Finding a common bond of love and courage created a union of sovereign states that took care of their own while standing together against all enemies foreign and domestic. The Chaos results in Harmony following unexpected discoveries, meetings and opportunities, the framework of the Republic allowed people to take their discoveries and ideas and bring them to fruition in cooperation with others. They were not limited to their original station in life. They took the chances – they succeeded – they failed – they got up and tried again.They were not counted among “those cold and timid souls who have never tasted victory or defeat.” _______________________________________________________ With the excitement of discovery, of tasks accomplished, of people served, the sense of beauty and stewardship created a myriad of opportunities for others to develop and hone their skills in whatever area or vocation they were drawn to or humanly capable of. The natural outcome of accomplishment and drive for discovery has to lead to improvements in ways of doing things – of ways to refine and apply natural elements. This led to high technology which opened more doors for more people to develop and hone their skills – and to develop ways to communicate and transmit information. Early man long ago discovered the need for a medium of exchange – money. In our time, free enterprise capitalism generated the natural and earned wealth that was circulated and recirculated in the economy as it grows. With Finance as the servant rather than the master of society, all can prosper – even the bankers, savers and entrepreneurs. _______________________________________________________ |
Practical Steps as we go to Work
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow." --James Madison, Federalist No. 62, 1788
Rules of Fives
Here is a challenge for all of us to ponder, strive to apply in our endeavors. These are not to replace the tenets of our respective faiths, as they are merely attempts to focus our faith in God and Country for the good of all.
LEGISLATION AND BUREACRACY –
Five important questions should be consistently asked, truthfully answered and applied with integrity when writing legislation and running any resulting bureaucracy:
1. Will this new law help or hurt initiative or personal responsibility?
2. Does the legislation or the bureaucracy it authorizes equally benefit the wider community? The bureaucracy is charged to serve and challenge, not to harass and fine.
3. Will this legislation put people or regions in a creative or entrepreneurial strait jacket or vying for government handouts?
4. Will the legislation encourage and maximize private enterprise and employment without requiring major government oversight?
5. Is the legislation less than 100 pages in length, devoid of selective privileges and unrelated attachments and riders?
FIVE RULES FOR IMMIGRANTS
1. You are coming to a country worth loving. Coyotes are not good to do business with.
2. You have worked hard all your life just to survive. Today you can work to make life better for yourself, your family and your new country.
3. People who want to control you will offer you all kinds of free gifts. Actually those free gifts cost your hosts $4 for every dollar you get in freebies. They will resent you and you will respond in anger. Their freebies aren’t worth the misery they cause.
4. Work quickly toward becoming a citizen. Our immigration laws are terrible, but there are many who would welcome you on the same level as anyone else as they work to change the laws to make your path to citizenship clear and responsible. The responsibility is yours to move forward in a way your children will be proud of you.
5. Be a good neighbor. Americans have gotten used to great cooking from all over the world.
FIVE RULES FOR CITIZENS
1. Sports and other hobbies are great pastimes for all of us. Never allow them to take you away from your responsibility to be an informed citizen. It is a tyrant’s strategy since civilization began to keep the people distracted from their evildoings. Don’t limit your sources of news to one outlet.
2. The Declaration of Independence gave us the moral and spiritual foundation on which the Constitution was built. It also has a list of the things a tyrant will do to have power over you. Become familiar with them because human foibles and greed never change and must be checked.
3. It is your job to educate your children in the responsibilities of citizenship and stewardship. Responsible citizens create prosperous businesses and creative adventures. Stewardship creates a natural love for the environment and the resources from which to create new technologies and products rules and regulations from an arrogant bureaucrat can never match.
4. Responsibility starts with each individual as soon as a child can be taught. When help is needed there is never a long term involvement in providing assistance from government agencies, especially the Federal Government. Government has no capacity for love. History proves it is more likely to become a killer. It also costs 4 times as much in taxes and debt to “serve” your needs from the Federal level.
5. Strive for Beauty to be the leading element in your life and community. Money and its manipulations must never be the master and the leading element. The true role of money is as the servant of all – its greatest and most profitable potential.
FIVE RULES FOR UNION MEMBERS
1. If you are only looking for a job, don’t join a union. Entry level jobs are for you to learn to be responsible and get an idea what businesses need to stay in business. If you’re not making your employer a profit, you should be fired.
2. If you want to build your skills and be adequately paid for them, be sure your union doesn’t just talk solidarity, but understands and applies subsidiarity and solidarity together. It competes with non-union workers by your being better at performance and reliability.
3. If your union wants to be involved in politics, be sure the members dues are applied as the members want them applied, if at all.
4. Your union should have room in its policies for members to grow and be rewarded or to expect support if they leave an employer to enter into business. The union should have an entrepreneurial policy where it can encourage members’ new businesses and possibly share in future profits and/or a friendly union contract that is good for employer and employee.
5. Your union’s health care structure should be totally local in service and administration, cooperating with local doctors, hospitals and clinics. The National or International should carry catastrophic care insurance for major medical care needs, but not make demands to participate in regular medical care.
FIVE RULES FOR THE YOUNG
1. You have a duty to know God and the laws of God that made this country different – why you have smart phones, video games and a car to move your sorry butt around.
2. You’re just a kid – enjoy growing up! You have a duty to find out what you are good at and start developing your gifts and talents to serve others and support a family one day.
3. You have a duty to your parents and family. If you don’t have one, get out and serve others and you’ll find one that might even love you back.
4. You have a duty to be kind and generous.
5. Create things of beauty and worth. Don’t ruin and destroy the dreams and work of others. Always be true to yourself – not what the mob thinks (it doesn’t think!).
FIVE RULES FOR ACADEMICS AND EDUCATORS
1. Freedom of Speech works both ways. You might learn something. An Academic’s mind is a terrible thing to waste.
2. Better the absent-minded professor who thrives on sharing his wisdom than an arrogant academic who steals from his students.
3. If you teach at a religious school, either respect their tenets or get out.
4. If you teach at a public school, you have a duty to fully explain and instill the nation’s founding principles and the benefits of free enterprise capitalism. The religious school covers these as a natural course of instruction. Your colleagues should be able to differ with you without fear of retribution.
In The Cause of Restored Liberal
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/cl/Wild Vortex
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow." --James Madison, Federalist No. 62, 1788
Rules of Fives
Here is a challenge for all of us to ponder, strive to apply in our endeavors. These are not to replace the tenets of our respective faiths, as they are merely attempts to focus our faith in God and Country for the good of all.
LEGISLATION AND BUREACRACY –
Five important questions should be consistently asked, truthfully answered and applied with integrity when writing legislation and running any resulting bureaucracy:
1. Will this new law help or hurt initiative or personal responsibility?
2. Does the legislation or the bureaucracy it authorizes equally benefit the wider community? The bureaucracy is charged to serve and challenge, not to harass and fine.
3. Will this legislation put people or regions in a creative or entrepreneurial strait jacket or vying for government handouts?
4. Will the legislation encourage and maximize private enterprise and employment without requiring major government oversight?
5. Is the legislation less than 100 pages in length, devoid of selective privileges and unrelated attachments and riders?
FIVE RULES FOR IMMIGRANTS
1. You are coming to a country worth loving. Coyotes are not good to do business with.
2. You have worked hard all your life just to survive. Today you can work to make life better for yourself, your family and your new country.
3. People who want to control you will offer you all kinds of free gifts. Actually those free gifts cost your hosts $4 for every dollar you get in freebies. They will resent you and you will respond in anger. Their freebies aren’t worth the misery they cause.
4. Work quickly toward becoming a citizen. Our immigration laws are terrible, but there are many who would welcome you on the same level as anyone else as they work to change the laws to make your path to citizenship clear and responsible. The responsibility is yours to move forward in a way your children will be proud of you.
5. Be a good neighbor. Americans have gotten used to great cooking from all over the world.
FIVE RULES FOR CITIZENS
1. Sports and other hobbies are great pastimes for all of us. Never allow them to take you away from your responsibility to be an informed citizen. It is a tyrant’s strategy since civilization began to keep the people distracted from their evildoings. Don’t limit your sources of news to one outlet.
2. The Declaration of Independence gave us the moral and spiritual foundation on which the Constitution was built. It also has a list of the things a tyrant will do to have power over you. Become familiar with them because human foibles and greed never change and must be checked.
3. It is your job to educate your children in the responsibilities of citizenship and stewardship. Responsible citizens create prosperous businesses and creative adventures. Stewardship creates a natural love for the environment and the resources from which to create new technologies and products rules and regulations from an arrogant bureaucrat can never match.
4. Responsibility starts with each individual as soon as a child can be taught. When help is needed there is never a long term involvement in providing assistance from government agencies, especially the Federal Government. Government has no capacity for love. History proves it is more likely to become a killer. It also costs 4 times as much in taxes and debt to “serve” your needs from the Federal level.
5. Strive for Beauty to be the leading element in your life and community. Money and its manipulations must never be the master and the leading element. The true role of money is as the servant of all – its greatest and most profitable potential.
FIVE RULES FOR UNION MEMBERS
1. If you are only looking for a job, don’t join a union. Entry level jobs are for you to learn to be responsible and get an idea what businesses need to stay in business. If you’re not making your employer a profit, you should be fired.
2. If you want to build your skills and be adequately paid for them, be sure your union doesn’t just talk solidarity, but understands and applies subsidiarity and solidarity together. It competes with non-union workers by your being better at performance and reliability.
3. If your union wants to be involved in politics, be sure the members dues are applied as the members want them applied, if at all.
4. Your union should have room in its policies for members to grow and be rewarded or to expect support if they leave an employer to enter into business. The union should have an entrepreneurial policy where it can encourage members’ new businesses and possibly share in future profits and/or a friendly union contract that is good for employer and employee.
5. Your union’s health care structure should be totally local in service and administration, cooperating with local doctors, hospitals and clinics. The National or International should carry catastrophic care insurance for major medical care needs, but not make demands to participate in regular medical care.
FIVE RULES FOR THE YOUNG
1. You have a duty to know God and the laws of God that made this country different – why you have smart phones, video games and a car to move your sorry butt around.
2. You’re just a kid – enjoy growing up! You have a duty to find out what you are good at and start developing your gifts and talents to serve others and support a family one day.
3. You have a duty to your parents and family. If you don’t have one, get out and serve others and you’ll find one that might even love you back.
4. You have a duty to be kind and generous.
5. Create things of beauty and worth. Don’t ruin and destroy the dreams and work of others. Always be true to yourself – not what the mob thinks (it doesn’t think!).
FIVE RULES FOR ACADEMICS AND EDUCATORS
1. Freedom of Speech works both ways. You might learn something. An Academic’s mind is a terrible thing to waste.
2. Better the absent-minded professor who thrives on sharing his wisdom than an arrogant academic who steals from his students.
3. If you teach at a religious school, either respect their tenets or get out.
4. If you teach at a public school, you have a duty to fully explain and instill the nation’s founding principles and the benefits of free enterprise capitalism. The religious school covers these as a natural course of instruction. Your colleagues should be able to differ with you without fear of retribution.
In The Cause of Restored Liberal
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/cl/Wild Vortex
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #16 Part 5
THE THEORIES SERIES
PLANNED SERVITUDE
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
I just read a recent poll that 60% of all Americans think that the Government is too big.
This pole included Democrat, Republicans and Independent political parties, and seemingly supports the idea that Government is in Chaos.
Chaos. This, along with popularity of the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama dropping like a rock, has created a vacuum of leadership and helter-skelter policies, cover-ups, double standards of judicial process, and crony-capitalism, and favor, that have caused tangible confusion and mistrust.
The result, among most hard working American citizens, creates a state of insecurity and doubt. This state of affairs, doggedly challenge the direction our elected officials are taking. As We The People look to the government, all we can see are embittered battles of power between the major political parties and their main operatives. They are engaged in the private and self-serving activities to impose their party's will and implement their chosen agenda through policy they can legislate in the Halls of Congress. Whom do they really to serve? Is it their positions or that of the voting public?
The voting public are just now starting to realize that those they elect do not listen to them, they don't follow the same rules of Law, they exempt themselves from old ones they usurp, and the new ones they craft, then shift and deny all of the blame and responsibility. Is this 'Planned Chaos' by those elected to govern?
There are many things that make this Country so wonderfully unique.
First and foremost, it has, since its creation had the blessing of a benevolent God. Amongst all the blessings the American citizen has been given is a special free spirit. Throughout our history we have stood against tyranny, slavery, floods, famines, and man-made and natural disasters.
We have built great buildings, canals, roadway, railways and all manner of innovative 'firsts')to make life easier. We have even put a man on the moon. Many have sacrificed their very life and limb to keep this Country free.
The American Citizens have set a new standard in the order and life of the World. Life allowed and above any man-designed law that sets the standard of rights and freedom as the perfect example of republican government in the history of mankind. It rises above all personal or financial -gain or recognition. Our Founding Fathers along with the Framers and Ratifiers called this order; The Law of Nature, or God's Law.
This order gives us comfort, direction, stability and self-assurance that all of us are equal in the sight of our God, and in fact, it 'guarantees' us unalienable equality, shared freedoms and rights toward the pursuit of our happiness.
The very foundation of our Country's Life Unique is the belief in the God we chose to worship and freedom in which to worship Him/Her? The major impact on the establishment of our government, is given every credit and prayerful thankfulness in the words of those Founders and Ratifiers.) To bring the context of this belief to a very personal level, I believe that our happiness depends on the continued blessings and watchful care of our God and His participation in our lives, applying in equal portion to the running of 'Our' government. In short, I am of the conviction; "if the government isn't making God happy, it sure in the hell ain't making me happy."
In God's Influence and Creation there is no representation of unintended chaos or confusion. God is the Supreme Being, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Nothing within the bounds of His Touch is without proper purpose or human definition. If it is not of God's Making, His Grace, or His Approval, how then are we to value it? Let us take a look at the chaos and confusion that this government and past government administrations have created.
We can go clear back to 1798 with the Sedition Act that targeted citizens and States that were vocal in opposition to the Quasi-War with France. President John Adams fully supported the Act and actually arrested and tried several citizens for treason. Realize the importance of this action- A president arresting citizens of the Nation of which he is the elected leader-chosen to serve them all-arresting those who did not agree with him?
One of the most vocal and prominent opponents to the Act was Thomas Jefferson, who believed that Congress and/or the President did not have the Constitutional authority to enact such a Law.
This conflict caused some confusion amongst the citizens and States, and eventually led to the election of Jefferson to the office of President in 1801. At that time, with the support of Congress, the Sedition Act was repealed, and Jefferson pardoned those who had been convicted under President Adams. Please note that this is a classic example of how citizens (did/should) vote their displeasure and non-support of a law which causes purposeful and deliberate public confusion and chaos through the unfair treatment imposed by an un-Constitutional government action.
At the beginning of World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt, proposed to Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Great Britain, a United Nations that would be comprised of all Allied Nations. Through a series of meetings, between the representatives from the:
Republic of China
United Kingdom
Union of Soviet Socialist States
and the United States of America
The meetings ended at the Dumbarton Conference in Washington D.C., on October of 1945. The general proposal and membership of the United Nations was complete. In December, of that same year, the U.S. Congress voted unanimously to request that the United Nations Headquarters be established in the United States. John D. Rockefeller Jr., donated 8.5 million dollars to the purchase of land on the East River in New York City. The building was erected and still stands today as the United Nations Complex. The U.N. mission statement was to maintain International peace and security for all Nations of the world and to encourage all to come together into this international alliance.
President Truman, with the approval of Congress signed a "treaty" with 50 other Nations. It would create a non-binding promise of global peace and security, advance policy that promoted the end of all global wars through a collective of Sovereign Nations. It is vital to understand that many of the Nations were under a Socialist or Communist system of Government.
Those Nation's citizens were living under the bondage of a hostile government that suppressed their human rights, the very opposite of what this, our own Great Nation, stands for. Did Congress and Truman really believe that forming a partnership with governments of that participate and nurture such governmental practice would be beneficial to the American Citizen?
Did they not understand that socialist and communists had vowed the destruction of all Nations that did not agree with them? Very pointed and specific questions.Thea answer is No. Our Constitutionally-Republic and elected representatives- just reached across the aisle and shook hands with the devil. This is the point in our history where the devil's nose got under the tent, and the flood gates of 'progressive' socialism opened up and poured themselves into our political system. Before the ink was dry on the Charter, Communist China, granted a charter membership as the Republic of China, was invading South Korea. This would eventually lead to the involvement of U.N. troops, and would largely be made-up of members of the U.S. Military.
Since that time, the U.S. Military has been in every single conflict on the globe. We have served in almost every nation of the world, been involved in many of their limited and private conflicts, and have been required to be the primary and major force involved. The most demoralizing and destructive conflict was the American Military forces sent into the 'conflict' that happened in the Republic of South Vietnam.
France had already been fighting there for years and abandoned the effort. This initially began as a sanctioned U.N. "peace keeping" action. Many of us are old enough to remember the destructive impacts, both in human terms and politically, the Vietnam conflict had on our Nation and Her People. It literally drained the life blood from this Country, I can offer as a member of Our Military Family, as well as nearly breaking the financial stability of the Country.
The only political party in this Nation that won any advantage from that war was the 'progressive' socialists. Many of those people who "protested" the American involvement were the very socialists that supported the policies of the communist enemy we were fighting and dying at the hands of. Some are now, the elected or appointed officials holding positions of power in our present day government.
We have now become the "police force" of the world. Questionably, do we do this AND advance the cause of Socialism that is seeking to become the world-wide governing power? Our own Republic is financially broke, our military is demoralized, and the Nation is weary of all war. This state of constant and high-cost confusion leaves us teetering on the edge of chaos.
The first true Communist Nation, The State of the United Soviet Socialist Republic, established by Lenin in 1917, had for all practical purposes met the circumstance of an ultimate and final death spasm in the late 1980's. There are two main and important reasons why the Communist Republic failed.
Simply stated, they are a Financial instability and a government based on lies.
As the conflict in South Vietnam had devastated the United States in our own war of attrition, a similar war in Afghanistan had devastated the Soviet Union, both their Military and their economic system. The returning Veterans of that conflict told the truth, a truth that the Polit-bureau could not hide. Their stories revealed decades of government lies and deception. The elitism and exemptions that the Russian political leaders came crashing down. The Republics that had made up the Russian Soviet Block separated and became their own nations. They created and carved their new countries, somewhat in the same style the States established themselves in our own union of United States. With a little "Putinism' thrown in the mix.
If any of my descriptions of the former U.S.S.R sound familiar-looks similar to what is happening today with our very large and oppressive central government, your eyes and ears are not lying to you. It is happening at this very moment.
For all those out there that like to be lied to, please, raise your right hand. If there is any one ONE SINGLE PERSON who likes to have their hard earned wages stolen from them and given to terrorist, raise your right hand too. Then go look in the mirror and gaze at yourself with raised hand, and call that reflection a 'fool'.
The basic truth of the matter is, at this time we are no different than the Soviet Union in 1964. Past and Present government administrations have plundered our Country's riches, divided our land into political, racial, social and cultural combat zones, to further their own financial and political party power.
These elected and appointed officials, have exempted themselves, doing so through the abuse of our growing and encompassing legal system. They set themselves above any criminal indictments and conduct themselves insulated from prosecution for their crimes.
Granted there are some that do not fall into this category, but they are far too few to make a major impact, and are subject to be ridiculed and slandered from the Congressional Criminal Cartel, the establishment protectorate, which includes our current President and his minions. Most effective of whom are the Senate of the United States under the leadership and majority control of the Democratic Party.
If any of these Congressmen and women had our best interests, and the security of this Nation truly at the core-intent of their hearts, we would not be governed in the manner we are today. There would be no lies and secret deceptions. No National financial crisis. Crushing national debt and generational theft-The Chaos and Confusion of guaranteed Servitude.
We would not be sending our Military into foreign Nations to support a terrorist organization, or involve ourselves in the fighting of an internal country and their civil conflict. Our role would be only of a humanitarian action. We would not be allowing our borders left porous and dangerously open to foreign criminal elements that traffic in guns, drugs or slavery.
We would not even be considering granting those criminal foreign nationals amnesty for any reason. We would not be in a budget battle or bailing out private banks or auto mobile companies to the favor of organized political support factions.
Self-Proclaimed - Proud and Out In The Open - 'progressive' Socialists would not be allowed in our)White House working under the cover-title of a 'political adviser' and unchallenged-unchecked-unapproved-and under no other authority than the President of the United States. The Senate confirmation process which allows the vetting of the American public is neutered. Hate baiting anti-American preachers, racist preachers and their divisive language should not be allowed a public podium-supported by political leaders to demand their agenda toward their version of social justice.
There is an Up-side! Many people are waking up and are really starting to question this government's course, actions and intent. The biased media, and the bully-pulpit of this government does not have total control over the ways we can communicate, and disseminate our information. Word of mouth and inter-net are both methods of communication that remain 'free'.
American citizens have been judged by those currently in power as being ignorant or unable to govern themselves.They have mistakenly assumed, that we all believe in and support their ideals. For our position, underestimating their opposition would be a grave mistake utilizing the strategy of war. Believe me, when I say my Friends... We Are at War.
It may not be the war fought in a bloody-sense, but it is a Continuous-Camouflaged-Insidious and deadly battle. A Long War. I see more hope now than I did several months ago. People are starting to organize and are becoming more vocal in their displeasure.
Citizens are talking locally and organizing locally to take on the ruling class, starting to seriously question their elected officials. Sheriffs have organized Nationally and are Standing up and Protecting citizens from unauthorized governmental intrusions and violations of our civil rights. States are defying Federal Laws, State -Counties are considering seceding from their States because of the large population majority politics, that are rife with corruption, are creating unsustainable financial instability through their 'progressive' policies and Federally mandated rules.
Just as these same policies are creating National Financial chaos-the States face the same dire reality). Recent Recalls of elected State Senators for restricting 2nd amendment rights, in the State of Colorado, is one shining example of the power and the will of The American citizen that still does believe the Constitution of the United States is a sacred document. The list goes on, and is very much encouraging. We are on the Right Path to Restore our Republic.
As I reflect on the negativity that I am forced to chronicle, the crimes of our central-federal government, crimes against the Constitution they commit, and the far reaching usurpation of their powers, I sometimes think about what our Founding Fathers must have felt? The early history of the birth of this Nation tells of the great and oppressive struggle they faced. I sometimes wish, "if I only knew what they knew" and how did they finally find the solution that allowed them to succeed against such overwhelming odds?
I know I already have one certain answer. They had an unshakable faith and hope in the God they believed in. They believed He had inspired them to create the greatest concept of government ever conceived by mankind. A government that would serve not only their generation, but of future generations, a structure for a truly free and independent form of self-government.
I feel very blessed to have been born in this Country, and even more so in a Country founded by such honorable and gifted men. My deepest desire is to pass that ideal on to all of our children. I know with your help and prayers, together we can insure that the hope and trust established so long ago, left to us to protect-defend-and continue will continue to live on.
In The Cause of Restored Liberal
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/cl/db
PLANNED SERVITUDE
To The Free Citizens of each Independent and Sovereign State of the United States of America
I just read a recent poll that 60% of all Americans think that the Government is too big.
This pole included Democrat, Republicans and Independent political parties, and seemingly supports the idea that Government is in Chaos.
Chaos. This, along with popularity of the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama dropping like a rock, has created a vacuum of leadership and helter-skelter policies, cover-ups, double standards of judicial process, and crony-capitalism, and favor, that have caused tangible confusion and mistrust.
The result, among most hard working American citizens, creates a state of insecurity and doubt. This state of affairs, doggedly challenge the direction our elected officials are taking. As We The People look to the government, all we can see are embittered battles of power between the major political parties and their main operatives. They are engaged in the private and self-serving activities to impose their party's will and implement their chosen agenda through policy they can legislate in the Halls of Congress. Whom do they really to serve? Is it their positions or that of the voting public?
The voting public are just now starting to realize that those they elect do not listen to them, they don't follow the same rules of Law, they exempt themselves from old ones they usurp, and the new ones they craft, then shift and deny all of the blame and responsibility. Is this 'Planned Chaos' by those elected to govern?
There are many things that make this Country so wonderfully unique.
First and foremost, it has, since its creation had the blessing of a benevolent God. Amongst all the blessings the American citizen has been given is a special free spirit. Throughout our history we have stood against tyranny, slavery, floods, famines, and man-made and natural disasters.
We have built great buildings, canals, roadway, railways and all manner of innovative 'firsts')to make life easier. We have even put a man on the moon. Many have sacrificed their very life and limb to keep this Country free.
The American Citizens have set a new standard in the order and life of the World. Life allowed and above any man-designed law that sets the standard of rights and freedom as the perfect example of republican government in the history of mankind. It rises above all personal or financial -gain or recognition. Our Founding Fathers along with the Framers and Ratifiers called this order; The Law of Nature, or God's Law.
This order gives us comfort, direction, stability and self-assurance that all of us are equal in the sight of our God, and in fact, it 'guarantees' us unalienable equality, shared freedoms and rights toward the pursuit of our happiness.
The very foundation of our Country's Life Unique is the belief in the God we chose to worship and freedom in which to worship Him/Her? The major impact on the establishment of our government, is given every credit and prayerful thankfulness in the words of those Founders and Ratifiers.) To bring the context of this belief to a very personal level, I believe that our happiness depends on the continued blessings and watchful care of our God and His participation in our lives, applying in equal portion to the running of 'Our' government. In short, I am of the conviction; "if the government isn't making God happy, it sure in the hell ain't making me happy."
In God's Influence and Creation there is no representation of unintended chaos or confusion. God is the Supreme Being, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Nothing within the bounds of His Touch is without proper purpose or human definition. If it is not of God's Making, His Grace, or His Approval, how then are we to value it? Let us take a look at the chaos and confusion that this government and past government administrations have created.
We can go clear back to 1798 with the Sedition Act that targeted citizens and States that were vocal in opposition to the Quasi-War with France. President John Adams fully supported the Act and actually arrested and tried several citizens for treason. Realize the importance of this action- A president arresting citizens of the Nation of which he is the elected leader-chosen to serve them all-arresting those who did not agree with him?
One of the most vocal and prominent opponents to the Act was Thomas Jefferson, who believed that Congress and/or the President did not have the Constitutional authority to enact such a Law.
This conflict caused some confusion amongst the citizens and States, and eventually led to the election of Jefferson to the office of President in 1801. At that time, with the support of Congress, the Sedition Act was repealed, and Jefferson pardoned those who had been convicted under President Adams. Please note that this is a classic example of how citizens (did/should) vote their displeasure and non-support of a law which causes purposeful and deliberate public confusion and chaos through the unfair treatment imposed by an un-Constitutional government action.
At the beginning of World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt, proposed to Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Great Britain, a United Nations that would be comprised of all Allied Nations. Through a series of meetings, between the representatives from the:
Republic of China
United Kingdom
Union of Soviet Socialist States
and the United States of America
The meetings ended at the Dumbarton Conference in Washington D.C., on October of 1945. The general proposal and membership of the United Nations was complete. In December, of that same year, the U.S. Congress voted unanimously to request that the United Nations Headquarters be established in the United States. John D. Rockefeller Jr., donated 8.5 million dollars to the purchase of land on the East River in New York City. The building was erected and still stands today as the United Nations Complex. The U.N. mission statement was to maintain International peace and security for all Nations of the world and to encourage all to come together into this international alliance.
President Truman, with the approval of Congress signed a "treaty" with 50 other Nations. It would create a non-binding promise of global peace and security, advance policy that promoted the end of all global wars through a collective of Sovereign Nations. It is vital to understand that many of the Nations were under a Socialist or Communist system of Government.
Those Nation's citizens were living under the bondage of a hostile government that suppressed their human rights, the very opposite of what this, our own Great Nation, stands for. Did Congress and Truman really believe that forming a partnership with governments of that participate and nurture such governmental practice would be beneficial to the American Citizen?
Did they not understand that socialist and communists had vowed the destruction of all Nations that did not agree with them? Very pointed and specific questions.Thea answer is No. Our Constitutionally-Republic and elected representatives- just reached across the aisle and shook hands with the devil. This is the point in our history where the devil's nose got under the tent, and the flood gates of 'progressive' socialism opened up and poured themselves into our political system. Before the ink was dry on the Charter, Communist China, granted a charter membership as the Republic of China, was invading South Korea. This would eventually lead to the involvement of U.N. troops, and would largely be made-up of members of the U.S. Military.
Since that time, the U.S. Military has been in every single conflict on the globe. We have served in almost every nation of the world, been involved in many of their limited and private conflicts, and have been required to be the primary and major force involved. The most demoralizing and destructive conflict was the American Military forces sent into the 'conflict' that happened in the Republic of South Vietnam.
France had already been fighting there for years and abandoned the effort. This initially began as a sanctioned U.N. "peace keeping" action. Many of us are old enough to remember the destructive impacts, both in human terms and politically, the Vietnam conflict had on our Nation and Her People. It literally drained the life blood from this Country, I can offer as a member of Our Military Family, as well as nearly breaking the financial stability of the Country.
The only political party in this Nation that won any advantage from that war was the 'progressive' socialists. Many of those people who "protested" the American involvement were the very socialists that supported the policies of the communist enemy we were fighting and dying at the hands of. Some are now, the elected or appointed officials holding positions of power in our present day government.
We have now become the "police force" of the world. Questionably, do we do this AND advance the cause of Socialism that is seeking to become the world-wide governing power? Our own Republic is financially broke, our military is demoralized, and the Nation is weary of all war. This state of constant and high-cost confusion leaves us teetering on the edge of chaos.
The first true Communist Nation, The State of the United Soviet Socialist Republic, established by Lenin in 1917, had for all practical purposes met the circumstance of an ultimate and final death spasm in the late 1980's. There are two main and important reasons why the Communist Republic failed.
Simply stated, they are a Financial instability and a government based on lies.
As the conflict in South Vietnam had devastated the United States in our own war of attrition, a similar war in Afghanistan had devastated the Soviet Union, both their Military and their economic system. The returning Veterans of that conflict told the truth, a truth that the Polit-bureau could not hide. Their stories revealed decades of government lies and deception. The elitism and exemptions that the Russian political leaders came crashing down. The Republics that had made up the Russian Soviet Block separated and became their own nations. They created and carved their new countries, somewhat in the same style the States established themselves in our own union of United States. With a little "Putinism' thrown in the mix.
If any of my descriptions of the former U.S.S.R sound familiar-looks similar to what is happening today with our very large and oppressive central government, your eyes and ears are not lying to you. It is happening at this very moment.
For all those out there that like to be lied to, please, raise your right hand. If there is any one ONE SINGLE PERSON who likes to have their hard earned wages stolen from them and given to terrorist, raise your right hand too. Then go look in the mirror and gaze at yourself with raised hand, and call that reflection a 'fool'.
The basic truth of the matter is, at this time we are no different than the Soviet Union in 1964. Past and Present government administrations have plundered our Country's riches, divided our land into political, racial, social and cultural combat zones, to further their own financial and political party power.
These elected and appointed officials, have exempted themselves, doing so through the abuse of our growing and encompassing legal system. They set themselves above any criminal indictments and conduct themselves insulated from prosecution for their crimes.
Granted there are some that do not fall into this category, but they are far too few to make a major impact, and are subject to be ridiculed and slandered from the Congressional Criminal Cartel, the establishment protectorate, which includes our current President and his minions. Most effective of whom are the Senate of the United States under the leadership and majority control of the Democratic Party.
If any of these Congressmen and women had our best interests, and the security of this Nation truly at the core-intent of their hearts, we would not be governed in the manner we are today. There would be no lies and secret deceptions. No National financial crisis. Crushing national debt and generational theft-The Chaos and Confusion of guaranteed Servitude.
We would not be sending our Military into foreign Nations to support a terrorist organization, or involve ourselves in the fighting of an internal country and their civil conflict. Our role would be only of a humanitarian action. We would not be allowing our borders left porous and dangerously open to foreign criminal elements that traffic in guns, drugs or slavery.
We would not even be considering granting those criminal foreign nationals amnesty for any reason. We would not be in a budget battle or bailing out private banks or auto mobile companies to the favor of organized political support factions.
Self-Proclaimed - Proud and Out In The Open - 'progressive' Socialists would not be allowed in our)White House working under the cover-title of a 'political adviser' and unchallenged-unchecked-unapproved-and under no other authority than the President of the United States. The Senate confirmation process which allows the vetting of the American public is neutered. Hate baiting anti-American preachers, racist preachers and their divisive language should not be allowed a public podium-supported by political leaders to demand their agenda toward their version of social justice.
There is an Up-side! Many people are waking up and are really starting to question this government's course, actions and intent. The biased media, and the bully-pulpit of this government does not have total control over the ways we can communicate, and disseminate our information. Word of mouth and inter-net are both methods of communication that remain 'free'.
American citizens have been judged by those currently in power as being ignorant or unable to govern themselves.They have mistakenly assumed, that we all believe in and support their ideals. For our position, underestimating their opposition would be a grave mistake utilizing the strategy of war. Believe me, when I say my Friends... We Are at War.
It may not be the war fought in a bloody-sense, but it is a Continuous-Camouflaged-Insidious and deadly battle. A Long War. I see more hope now than I did several months ago. People are starting to organize and are becoming more vocal in their displeasure.
Citizens are talking locally and organizing locally to take on the ruling class, starting to seriously question their elected officials. Sheriffs have organized Nationally and are Standing up and Protecting citizens from unauthorized governmental intrusions and violations of our civil rights. States are defying Federal Laws, State -Counties are considering seceding from their States because of the large population majority politics, that are rife with corruption, are creating unsustainable financial instability through their 'progressive' policies and Federally mandated rules.
Just as these same policies are creating National Financial chaos-the States face the same dire reality). Recent Recalls of elected State Senators for restricting 2nd amendment rights, in the State of Colorado, is one shining example of the power and the will of The American citizen that still does believe the Constitution of the United States is a sacred document. The list goes on, and is very much encouraging. We are on the Right Path to Restore our Republic.
As I reflect on the negativity that I am forced to chronicle, the crimes of our central-federal government, crimes against the Constitution they commit, and the far reaching usurpation of their powers, I sometimes think about what our Founding Fathers must have felt? The early history of the birth of this Nation tells of the great and oppressive struggle they faced. I sometimes wish, "if I only knew what they knew" and how did they finally find the solution that allowed them to succeed against such overwhelming odds?
I know I already have one certain answer. They had an unshakable faith and hope in the God they believed in. They believed He had inspired them to create the greatest concept of government ever conceived by mankind. A government that would serve not only their generation, but of future generations, a structure for a truly free and independent form of self-government.
I feel very blessed to have been born in this Country, and even more so in a Country founded by such honorable and gifted men. My deepest desire is to pass that ideal on to all of our children. I know with your help and prayers, together we can insure that the hope and trust established so long ago, left to us to protect-defend-and continue will continue to live on.
In The Cause of Restored Liberal
As is Every Classic Liberal
Publius/cl/db
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #16 – Part 6a
THE THEORIES CHAOS SERIES
SOCIALIST CHAOS
CONCLUSION - THE 14TH AMENDMENT
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
How to Tame Socialist Chaos ........and not be eaten by the Dictator!
No one really knows how a hurricane develops.
What we do know is that they generally start off the West Coast of Africa. Maybe, it is the combination of high pressure or low pressure, warm air- cold air, and the particular ocean currents with their own water temperature, which combine in some mysterious way? The result becomes one the most natural and destructive forces felt by mankind.
For whatever reason, the powers these winds generate have the force to lift buildings, cars, and most manmade structures. It is a power with its own will and it will place them anyplace it wants. Hundreds of square miles of wastelands are left in its path and hundreds of thousands of lives are disrupted. The most tragic, in some instances people lose their lives; they can't get out of the destructive force's path fast enough.
Actually, what I just described above; for in the most part, has been the similar result of the ratification of the 14th amendment. July 9, 1868, was the hurricane that hit the Constitution.
This amendment virtually destroyed the 10th amendment and State Sovereignty established by the Framers and the Ratifiers. Passed 145 years ago, it has left a wake of destruction that perpetually devastates our economy, inalienable rights, liberty and freedoms and Constitutional Restraints.
The Federal government's control over States greatly expanded under this amendment. How the citizens living and working in those states would/could chose to govern themselves, diminished in direct relationship as well. Citizens were no longer State Citizens, they had been nationalized. All State and privately owned property was now owned by the Federal Government.The list is long, but it is not the purpose in my writing of this paper.
I wish to state principally how ironic the fact is, that this amendment was not necessary.
If it were not for a vindictive Congress - a tyrannical President - and a timid Supreme Court; reconstruction after the Civil War would have been of a different design, the 14th would not have language that states 'no state shall', all the usurpation that has resulted hence would not be history, and I would not be writing this paper.
The 14th Amendment is the first amendment added after the Bill of Rights, that gives the self-same "rights" to the Central Government. All States lost their Sovereignty as Nation-States, but even more profoundly, those State Citizens lost their power of local and state governance. "No State shall" now meant a far-distant and impassionate Federal Congress, President, and Supreme Court would make such decisions. The balance of power the Founders and Ratifiers had so painstakingly and delicately designed into the Constitution was lost.
The creation of the 14th also shifted the elected or potentially-elected, and appointed officials base of political support. Going forward that would now belong to the powerful and wealthy elite. The appointment of Senators by their State Legislature, as originally designed was also shifted, because States no longer had local government control. The 14th Amendment thus allowed the Constitutional condition that allowed for the 17th Amendment to be considered and ratified.
Now that appointed Senators were no longer obligated to their State's interests, threat of recall or not, here comes the 17th Amendment. As the 17th will be addressed by my colleague, and not wishing to get into another writer's bailiwick, I will but put forth, the shift that came along before the 17th Amendment was ratified, was the gale forces that blew from the 14th Amendment.
The Bottom Line is that all the power of the elected officials moved to Washington D.C. from ratification of the 14th on, and technically, States became subject Territories under Federal Law.
One thing that 'progressive' socialists are good at is creating chaos from a well ordered government structure.
They do this, in part and partial application of, intent of word definition or the meaning of the word. Most commonly, the progressive ‘socialists”, depended in large part on people's lack of education about our Constitutional Republic and the intent and purpose of the Founding Fathers, Framers and Ratifiers.
....And they LIE, A LOT, twisting and manipulating laws to fit their agenda; even making themselves exempt from the very laws they demand "the People' they are supposed to represent, will have to live by. The double standards of biased judicial, or biased social justice, create confusion, encouraged confusion eventually leads to chaos. A government of intentional chaos leads to slavery.
Every single socialist structured government creates chaos as a form of rule and empowerment to their agenda. Chaos also creates a sense of fear for the Citizens. Fearing what the government or dictator will do next, to strip you of your dignity and self-worth, or forcing you to buy something you don't want or can't use and can't afford, are the manipulations that through decades have become the storm surges that have continually battered and eroded our sovereignties. So, they use chaos as a destructive force.
The Socialist 'progressives, amidst all this chaos they have created, keep a secret that they hope you do not discover. Actually, once you see 'the progressives for all that they are and hope to achieve, it is not much of a secret. In fact, through the decades leading up to now, they have been much more careful about openly proclaiming their intentions, but no more. They think the time for them to reach the fulfillment of their dreams...is NOW. What the socialist 'progressives' want is to fundamentally transform this Country. They want to destroy the design of the Constitution, and they want us to think there is nothing we can do about it.
They don't want us to know there is 'A KEY' - how to use 'THE KEY' or to have the desire or the will to combine 'WE THE PEOPLE' using 'THE KEY' ...To Save OUR Constitutional Republic, as we were founded.
The 'KEY'-'is the SOLUTION', 'is the METHOD' and the' PROCESS'...it is in the Constitution - it saves the Constitution - it saves us from a government that has designed to take ALL from us, as their final 'progressive' victory, a democratic/socialist America.
The key is Article V of the Constitution. This Article is the downfall of every potential tyrant or dictator and the end of every oath-breaking elected and appointed official in our government. It is the ONE THING that the power-hungry-chaos-creating politicians cannot change...EVER...or until they destroy the Constitution where the key is safe.
So let us say that the 14th amendment was repealed, what does that do for you... personally, and the county-state you live in?
The first thing it does is restore State Sovereignty. It reinstates you as a State Citizen and protects you from any chaotic Federal Government. It means that your local city or county government is no longer subject to federal black- mail from tax monies or federal laws.
Federal property is returned to State control. Fisheries and game laws are under State restrictions as well as waterways, mineral rights and forest harvesting: state jurisdictions.
Private industry has far less mandates to abide by. Federal Courts are restricted in jurisdiction and opinion. Employment will rise in every state as citizens create their own businesses and business environments.
Broader tax bases are created in states, and citizens will be taxed at a lesser rate. Your elected officials will be accessible and compliant to your vote. Self-interest groups and lobbyist influence will be restricted, because officials will have to do 'the people's business' in their own backyard and not in the backrooms of Washington D.C. The elitist and the wealthy will have to try their method there as well.
Most importantly, it will bring government back to the local arena, where the voting public will have more direct control and influence of their own, on those elected officials.
The Article V Ratification process, that we are working to promote, eliminates the chaos of out-of-touch Congress, the out-of-control President and the out-of-reach U.S. Supreme Court.
All it will take is Legislatures of 38 States to agree to a ratification convention (the 1828 dictionary, definition of convention). At which time, a single amendment will be put forth to repeal three abusive and un-Constitutional Amendments, namely the 14-16 and 17th Amendments. The 28th amendment, simple, 20 words will/and can restore order -out of the 'progressive'- socialist -chaotic hurricane that we are presently living in.
Honestly folks aren't you tired of being beat and battered by all the flying objects? All the Lies that swirl around with no end or the laws that only applies to you? Living in the gale force winds despotism coming from our very large and out of control chaotic government?
I am going to do something about it. I am respectfully asking that you join me, along with thousands of others. Support Article V and the 28th amendment to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments. Let's bring order and peace back to our States, our communities, and our lives.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/The Lawman
******************************************
SOCIALIST CHAOS
CONCLUSION - THE 14TH AMENDMENT
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
How to Tame Socialist Chaos ........and not be eaten by the Dictator!
No one really knows how a hurricane develops.
What we do know is that they generally start off the West Coast of Africa. Maybe, it is the combination of high pressure or low pressure, warm air- cold air, and the particular ocean currents with their own water temperature, which combine in some mysterious way? The result becomes one the most natural and destructive forces felt by mankind.
For whatever reason, the powers these winds generate have the force to lift buildings, cars, and most manmade structures. It is a power with its own will and it will place them anyplace it wants. Hundreds of square miles of wastelands are left in its path and hundreds of thousands of lives are disrupted. The most tragic, in some instances people lose their lives; they can't get out of the destructive force's path fast enough.
Actually, what I just described above; for in the most part, has been the similar result of the ratification of the 14th amendment. July 9, 1868, was the hurricane that hit the Constitution.
This amendment virtually destroyed the 10th amendment and State Sovereignty established by the Framers and the Ratifiers. Passed 145 years ago, it has left a wake of destruction that perpetually devastates our economy, inalienable rights, liberty and freedoms and Constitutional Restraints.
The Federal government's control over States greatly expanded under this amendment. How the citizens living and working in those states would/could chose to govern themselves, diminished in direct relationship as well. Citizens were no longer State Citizens, they had been nationalized. All State and privately owned property was now owned by the Federal Government.The list is long, but it is not the purpose in my writing of this paper.
I wish to state principally how ironic the fact is, that this amendment was not necessary.
If it were not for a vindictive Congress - a tyrannical President - and a timid Supreme Court; reconstruction after the Civil War would have been of a different design, the 14th would not have language that states 'no state shall', all the usurpation that has resulted hence would not be history, and I would not be writing this paper.
The 14th Amendment is the first amendment added after the Bill of Rights, that gives the self-same "rights" to the Central Government. All States lost their Sovereignty as Nation-States, but even more profoundly, those State Citizens lost their power of local and state governance. "No State shall" now meant a far-distant and impassionate Federal Congress, President, and Supreme Court would make such decisions. The balance of power the Founders and Ratifiers had so painstakingly and delicately designed into the Constitution was lost.
The creation of the 14th also shifted the elected or potentially-elected, and appointed officials base of political support. Going forward that would now belong to the powerful and wealthy elite. The appointment of Senators by their State Legislature, as originally designed was also shifted, because States no longer had local government control. The 14th Amendment thus allowed the Constitutional condition that allowed for the 17th Amendment to be considered and ratified.
Now that appointed Senators were no longer obligated to their State's interests, threat of recall or not, here comes the 17th Amendment. As the 17th will be addressed by my colleague, and not wishing to get into another writer's bailiwick, I will but put forth, the shift that came along before the 17th Amendment was ratified, was the gale forces that blew from the 14th Amendment.
The Bottom Line is that all the power of the elected officials moved to Washington D.C. from ratification of the 14th on, and technically, States became subject Territories under Federal Law.
One thing that 'progressive' socialists are good at is creating chaos from a well ordered government structure.
They do this, in part and partial application of, intent of word definition or the meaning of the word. Most commonly, the progressive ‘socialists”, depended in large part on people's lack of education about our Constitutional Republic and the intent and purpose of the Founding Fathers, Framers and Ratifiers.
....And they LIE, A LOT, twisting and manipulating laws to fit their agenda; even making themselves exempt from the very laws they demand "the People' they are supposed to represent, will have to live by. The double standards of biased judicial, or biased social justice, create confusion, encouraged confusion eventually leads to chaos. A government of intentional chaos leads to slavery.
Every single socialist structured government creates chaos as a form of rule and empowerment to their agenda. Chaos also creates a sense of fear for the Citizens. Fearing what the government or dictator will do next, to strip you of your dignity and self-worth, or forcing you to buy something you don't want or can't use and can't afford, are the manipulations that through decades have become the storm surges that have continually battered and eroded our sovereignties. So, they use chaos as a destructive force.
The Socialist 'progressives, amidst all this chaos they have created, keep a secret that they hope you do not discover. Actually, once you see 'the progressives for all that they are and hope to achieve, it is not much of a secret. In fact, through the decades leading up to now, they have been much more careful about openly proclaiming their intentions, but no more. They think the time for them to reach the fulfillment of their dreams...is NOW. What the socialist 'progressives' want is to fundamentally transform this Country. They want to destroy the design of the Constitution, and they want us to think there is nothing we can do about it.
They don't want us to know there is 'A KEY' - how to use 'THE KEY' or to have the desire or the will to combine 'WE THE PEOPLE' using 'THE KEY' ...To Save OUR Constitutional Republic, as we were founded.
The 'KEY'-'is the SOLUTION', 'is the METHOD' and the' PROCESS'...it is in the Constitution - it saves the Constitution - it saves us from a government that has designed to take ALL from us, as their final 'progressive' victory, a democratic/socialist America.
The key is Article V of the Constitution. This Article is the downfall of every potential tyrant or dictator and the end of every oath-breaking elected and appointed official in our government. It is the ONE THING that the power-hungry-chaos-creating politicians cannot change...EVER...or until they destroy the Constitution where the key is safe.
So let us say that the 14th amendment was repealed, what does that do for you... personally, and the county-state you live in?
The first thing it does is restore State Sovereignty. It reinstates you as a State Citizen and protects you from any chaotic Federal Government. It means that your local city or county government is no longer subject to federal black- mail from tax monies or federal laws.
Federal property is returned to State control. Fisheries and game laws are under State restrictions as well as waterways, mineral rights and forest harvesting: state jurisdictions.
Private industry has far less mandates to abide by. Federal Courts are restricted in jurisdiction and opinion. Employment will rise in every state as citizens create their own businesses and business environments.
Broader tax bases are created in states, and citizens will be taxed at a lesser rate. Your elected officials will be accessible and compliant to your vote. Self-interest groups and lobbyist influence will be restricted, because officials will have to do 'the people's business' in their own backyard and not in the backrooms of Washington D.C. The elitist and the wealthy will have to try their method there as well.
Most importantly, it will bring government back to the local arena, where the voting public will have more direct control and influence of their own, on those elected officials.
The Article V Ratification process, that we are working to promote, eliminates the chaos of out-of-touch Congress, the out-of-control President and the out-of-reach U.S. Supreme Court.
All it will take is Legislatures of 38 States to agree to a ratification convention (the 1828 dictionary, definition of convention). At which time, a single amendment will be put forth to repeal three abusive and un-Constitutional Amendments, namely the 14-16 and 17th Amendments. The 28th amendment, simple, 20 words will/and can restore order -out of the 'progressive'- socialist -chaotic hurricane that we are presently living in.
Honestly folks aren't you tired of being beat and battered by all the flying objects? All the Lies that swirl around with no end or the laws that only applies to you? Living in the gale force winds despotism coming from our very large and out of control chaotic government?
I am going to do something about it. I am respectfully asking that you join me, along with thousands of others. Support Article V and the 28th amendment to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments. Let's bring order and peace back to our States, our communities, and our lives.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/The Lawman
******************************************
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #16 – Part 6b
THE THEORIES SERIES
CHAOS OF INCOME TAX
THE HISTORY OF THE 16TH AMENDMENT
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
Let us begin at the Forming of our Republic. America had very few taxes in the beginning – in the time period of 1791 to 1802 all revenues were raised by taxing Spirits, sugar, auction tax, corporate bonds, slaves, tobacco, snuff. The high cost of war [1812] caused a new tax called a sales tax on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches [now called excise or luxury tax] They used the tariffs on imported goods to fund the government operation.
In 1862, to support the Civil War Congress passed the first income tax law. If you earned $600 to $10,000 per year you paid 3% - over $10,000 per year paid more. They added more sales and excise taxes and then the “INHERITANCE” tax. 1866 internal revenue collections hit the highest point in the nation’s 90 years history – more than $ 310 million. This amount was not seen again until 1911.
Tariffs are a consumption tax, which is just added to the cost of goods sold. All consumption taxes are regressive as the poor spend all their incomes on necessities. The rich, while living in luxury and bank most of their incomes escaping the consumption tax.
Growing political pressure on Government in 1894 hit hard and caused an income tax on the rich – all income over $4,000 would pay a 2% rate. Only around 1% of the America families earned that amount.
The tax was challenged in the Courts in 1895 [Pollack V. Farmers' Loan & Trust]. The court ruled the tax Unconstitutional as not in keeping with the “direct tax” which requires the taxes to be apportioned EQUALLY among the States according to the population.
The income tax was dead and Congress even thought of re-passing the law and trying a new court review as Justice Jackson had died and he was one of the 5-4. That idea horrified Taft as he held the court in high opinion. He feared it would weaken the future powers of the Court to be the final arbiter of the Constitution. He crafted a brilliant, 'Lawyerly', alternative: A Constitutional amendment to legalize a personal income tax, while corporate income taxes are technically excise taxes so they had no Constitutional problem. In 1913 the Amendment was passed and Ratified as the 16th Amendment.
President Woodrow Wilson and a Democrat Congress passed a personal income tax – 1% above $3,000 [middle class income at that time] and increased to 7% on incomes over $500,000. Like now there were many exclusions, deductions to bring down the marginal rates [the Mother of the lobbyist] – Congress and the President used tax laws and loop holes to please voter blocks and special interests – it is still doing the same thing with social and Industrial engineering added.
With the advent of WWII employment increase and so did the total revenues up from $5.4 billion in 1920 to $7.3 billion and withholding on wages were installed in 1943. The number of taxpayers increased to 60 million and tax revenues went to $43 billion by 1945.
Now in 1981, taxes were cut by $750 billion over six years. Then in 1982 and 1984 congress again raised taxes by $265 billion. Then President Reagan and Congress passed the tax reform act of 1986. It closed some of the special interest deductions and lowered top rates 50% to 28% or the lowest since 1916. Business taxation increased by $120 billion and equal reduction in individual taxes over a five year period.
Now we have an annual Revenue Reconciliation Act which means Congress’ deficit can be a reduction such as 1993 when President Clinton’s RRA reduced the deficit by $496 billion. Then in 1997 he signed a tax act which cut taxes by $152 billion cutting capital gains and a $500 per child tax credit and tax incentives for education.
President G. W. Bush passed the largest single tax reduction bill called the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It reduced the tax bite by $1.3 trillion with tax rates from 10% to 35% on incomes. In 2003 they cut the capital gain and dividends rate to 15%.
In 2004 the US was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal under the World Trade Organization. Congress then passed a basket full of tax breaks like individuals could deduct the State income tax or the Sales tax whichever is higher.
In two bills, 2005 and 2006 extended through 2010, held the capital gains rate and dividends rate consistent. They also raised the limits on the Alternative Minimum Tax with new incentives to save more for retirement.
As the above history indicates the tax system is more than a device to finance the government – it is to give the Government more power and the ability to pick winners and losers … like today … Solar and Wind get tax credits while Coal gets taxed and regulated – this has caused excessive stress in the energy world and chaos in the industrial manufacturing sectors.
“People try to live within their income so they can afford to pay taxes to a government that can't live within its income.” ~ Robert Half
“To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not.” ~ Thomas Paine
“It is a way to take people's wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. Inflation is the most universal tax of all.” ~ Thomas Sowell
“Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?” ~ Barry Goldwater
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/mc
***********************************************
CHAOS OF INCOME TAX
THE HISTORY OF THE 16TH AMENDMENT
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
Let us begin at the Forming of our Republic. America had very few taxes in the beginning – in the time period of 1791 to 1802 all revenues were raised by taxing Spirits, sugar, auction tax, corporate bonds, slaves, tobacco, snuff. The high cost of war [1812] caused a new tax called a sales tax on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches [now called excise or luxury tax] They used the tariffs on imported goods to fund the government operation.
In 1862, to support the Civil War Congress passed the first income tax law. If you earned $600 to $10,000 per year you paid 3% - over $10,000 per year paid more. They added more sales and excise taxes and then the “INHERITANCE” tax. 1866 internal revenue collections hit the highest point in the nation’s 90 years history – more than $ 310 million. This amount was not seen again until 1911.
Tariffs are a consumption tax, which is just added to the cost of goods sold. All consumption taxes are regressive as the poor spend all their incomes on necessities. The rich, while living in luxury and bank most of their incomes escaping the consumption tax.
Growing political pressure on Government in 1894 hit hard and caused an income tax on the rich – all income over $4,000 would pay a 2% rate. Only around 1% of the America families earned that amount.
The tax was challenged in the Courts in 1895 [Pollack V. Farmers' Loan & Trust]. The court ruled the tax Unconstitutional as not in keeping with the “direct tax” which requires the taxes to be apportioned EQUALLY among the States according to the population.
The income tax was dead and Congress even thought of re-passing the law and trying a new court review as Justice Jackson had died and he was one of the 5-4. That idea horrified Taft as he held the court in high opinion. He feared it would weaken the future powers of the Court to be the final arbiter of the Constitution. He crafted a brilliant, 'Lawyerly', alternative: A Constitutional amendment to legalize a personal income tax, while corporate income taxes are technically excise taxes so they had no Constitutional problem. In 1913 the Amendment was passed and Ratified as the 16th Amendment.
President Woodrow Wilson and a Democrat Congress passed a personal income tax – 1% above $3,000 [middle class income at that time] and increased to 7% on incomes over $500,000. Like now there were many exclusions, deductions to bring down the marginal rates [the Mother of the lobbyist] – Congress and the President used tax laws and loop holes to please voter blocks and special interests – it is still doing the same thing with social and Industrial engineering added.
With the advent of WWII employment increase and so did the total revenues up from $5.4 billion in 1920 to $7.3 billion and withholding on wages were installed in 1943. The number of taxpayers increased to 60 million and tax revenues went to $43 billion by 1945.
Now in 1981, taxes were cut by $750 billion over six years. Then in 1982 and 1984 congress again raised taxes by $265 billion. Then President Reagan and Congress passed the tax reform act of 1986. It closed some of the special interest deductions and lowered top rates 50% to 28% or the lowest since 1916. Business taxation increased by $120 billion and equal reduction in individual taxes over a five year period.
Now we have an annual Revenue Reconciliation Act which means Congress’ deficit can be a reduction such as 1993 when President Clinton’s RRA reduced the deficit by $496 billion. Then in 1997 he signed a tax act which cut taxes by $152 billion cutting capital gains and a $500 per child tax credit and tax incentives for education.
President G. W. Bush passed the largest single tax reduction bill called the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It reduced the tax bite by $1.3 trillion with tax rates from 10% to 35% on incomes. In 2003 they cut the capital gain and dividends rate to 15%.
In 2004 the US was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal under the World Trade Organization. Congress then passed a basket full of tax breaks like individuals could deduct the State income tax or the Sales tax whichever is higher.
In two bills, 2005 and 2006 extended through 2010, held the capital gains rate and dividends rate consistent. They also raised the limits on the Alternative Minimum Tax with new incentives to save more for retirement.
As the above history indicates the tax system is more than a device to finance the government – it is to give the Government more power and the ability to pick winners and losers … like today … Solar and Wind get tax credits while Coal gets taxed and regulated – this has caused excessive stress in the energy world and chaos in the industrial manufacturing sectors.
“People try to live within their income so they can afford to pay taxes to a government that can't live within its income.” ~ Robert Half
“To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not.” ~ Thomas Paine
“It is a way to take people's wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. Inflation is the most universal tax of all.” ~ Thomas Sowell
“Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?” ~ Barry Goldwater
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/mc
***********************************************
THE NEW FEDERALIST PAPERS #16 – Part 6c
THE THEORIES CHAOS SERIES
Conclusion - The 17th Amendment
Government Function Chaos
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
(Introduced May 13, 1912; Ratified April 8, 1913)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
What change did this make to the function of government under the Constitution?
History leading to the 17th Amendment
The Founders from the beginning addressed the near impossible balance of power between states with widely diverse populations. The House of Representatives is structured with one Representative per given block of population. For example, Alaska, the largest state in land area has only one House member, while California has 52. In the House, other than the right to speak and introduce bills, Alaska has no real voice.
Each state was allowed two Senators to counterbalance the overwhelming wealth and population spread of the various states. Senators were to represent the interests of the state and were appointed by their state legislatures. Essentially, they were to be lobbyists for their respective states. This assured the broader interests of the state versus a Senate controlled by and loyal to the central government. A state’s two Senators brought a level of equality of the states, especially in matters of national concern such as defense from foreign invasion, foreign relations and interstate commerce.
One historical argument for the Confederacy was its loyalty to states’ rights. Historians claim this was largely to retain slavery in the South. This was a straw dog for the Northern states to use to justify war. The North was leaning more away from the original Constitutional definition of states rights in favor of a strong central government.
Even though the South lost the Civil War and slaves were freed, most ended up in the British form of slavery. This meant the former slave or poor immigrant or uneducated were subject to a limited ability to earn a living only sufficient to survive under often terrible working conditions. It is interesting to note 150 years later, the most patriotic, constitutionally loyal states are in the South. The North sold its soul in favor of what would become the “progressive” movement and the unsavory Amendments of the early 20th Century which rapidly led to global war and massive depression. By contrast, the states of the Northeast where our history was born are most likely to ignore their solemn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution in favor of strong central and even one world government.
In between the Civil War and the period preceding World War I, there were financial panics, riots and strikes and general unrest as immigration rapidly increased and industrial production demands drew more people into the cities and away from the general independence of a rural lifestyle. People may have been poor in the rural areas, but they generally ate well and maintained a strong sense of self reliance. The loss of these in the industrial North created conditions for dependency. This in turn opened the door for the chicanery of today’s “progressive” movement largely populated by Democratic Party leadership and fellow travelers of both parties. Moral vacuums will surely be filled with something worse.
In the midst of labor strife of the 19th Century, the Catholic Church stepped in to protect the largely Catholic immigrants in the form of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum – on Capital and Labor.” He outlined the responsibilities of capital to assure a fair wage and working conditions for those they employ. This gave rise to the labor movement and the formation of unions to protect workers. This great gift of the Church to American Labor explains why most Catholics still embrace the Democrat Party – even though that party long ago turned its back on them.
Both Capital and Labor leadership reacted to having Judeo-Christian morality re-impressed on them by turning against not only the Church, but the Constitution. For Labor, it was the leaning to Communism and the corruption it brought along with the restoration of an “us vs. them” mentality even if the employer is fair and equitable. For Capital, it was the urge to control the monetary system and to centralize government where it could be controlled by capital and its speculations – not capitalism.
The pristine definition of Capitalism is in High-Finance’s role as the servant of commerce, investment in vision and courage, building personal and family savings and as a vehicle for philanthropy! Greed cannot handle such a wide and free distribution of the work of others.
Passing the 17th Amendment
If government is to be controlled by a small group, it must nullify states rights. Once central control is established, it becomes possible to control the monetary system extra-constitutionally. Until this time, an American was first known as “a Virginian,” “a New Yorker” – by his state of residence and property. The communal “American” came later.
States enjoyed the overall protection of a national military, but retained their own local law enforcement and militia’s under command of the Governor. This is still constitutionally true, but much of this has been usurped by the National Guard system and the modern rise of so-called Homeland Security which is attempting to override everything.
Without the 17th Amendment, Senators represented the specific interests of their states. With the 17th Amendment, popularly elected Senators soon found themselves representing what is often called “the common good” of the Senate’s exclusive club. The balance of representation with a bi-cameral Congress was thoroughly compromised. Within the states, the Governor, legislature and their balanced representation to the Federal government could well represent the needs of the local community – the state and for a prosperous and competitive role in a united nation.
The Philosophical Reason for Repealing the 17th Amendment
The Constitutional structure of the United States follows the ideal philosophical hierarchy of the equally important normative sciences of Philosophy.
1. Aesthetics (Beauty) – the Declaration of Independence and its acknowledgement of our Creator’s endowment balanced by a litany of the wrongs faced under despotism.
2. Ethics found in the Constitution to establish the rules of common discourse and behavior.
3. …and Logic of the Bill of Rights that protects the veracity and integrity of the Constitution.
This structure sets the natural flow of the next elements, Subsidiarity, Solidarity and Chaos leading to Harmony. The 17th Amendment disrupts the ideal order set by the Founders seeking the wisdom God offers those who ask for it.
1. Subsidiarity establishes the proper order of responsibility and term of assistance starting with the individual, the family, the community, the state and finally the federal government. The higher up the ladder of governance the shorter the term of assistance and regulation.
Before the 17th Amendment it was almost natural, often in spite of the machinations of leaders, elected, appointed or usurped – the system worked and had built in means of correction. The individual would be ashamed to accept charity beyond what meets his immediate needs.
The 17th Amendment violates Subsidiarity by moving a properly placed representative of authority higher up than is honestly manageable by those who are pledged the Senators’ loyalty and responsibility.
2. Solidarity – Every network has a hierarchy, no matter how invisible. With the 17th Amendment power brokers broke the Senators’ solidarity with their state legislators and therefore the people they represent at the proper level of subsidiarity.
3. Chaos – The Chaos of an expectant, curious and hard working people leads to the Harmony of discovery, development and the integrity of stewardship. Chaos of the streets occurs when rulers fail to carry out their responsibilities. This is also true when they do so after swearing a solemn oath to perform as expected within the framework of the Constitution and the wishes of the people who are likewise invested in the national order. This is a difficult task in a constitutional republic. It is impossible in a democracy, which over time will vote itself non-existent wealth and immoral privileges until it dies of depravity, debt and starvation.
The 17th Amendment contributes to chaos because it cannot allow the proper order of responsibility and rule. It must be repealed and the proper role of Senators representing the interests of the state they serve must take precedence.
Summary
The 17th Amendment must be repealed as a key part of returning our nation’s historically successful representative Constitutional Republic under God. The Senator must again represent the interests of his or her state at the pleasure of its legislature. This is essential to maintain a proper balance of governance that serves the greater interests of the state and the people who elected their legislators to govern the affairs of the state and those they send to Washington.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/Wild Vortex
Conclusion - The 17th Amendment
Government Function Chaos
To the Sovereign People of the Several Sovereign States of the Union
(Introduced May 13, 1912; Ratified April 8, 1913)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
What change did this make to the function of government under the Constitution?
History leading to the 17th Amendment
The Founders from the beginning addressed the near impossible balance of power between states with widely diverse populations. The House of Representatives is structured with one Representative per given block of population. For example, Alaska, the largest state in land area has only one House member, while California has 52. In the House, other than the right to speak and introduce bills, Alaska has no real voice.
Each state was allowed two Senators to counterbalance the overwhelming wealth and population spread of the various states. Senators were to represent the interests of the state and were appointed by their state legislatures. Essentially, they were to be lobbyists for their respective states. This assured the broader interests of the state versus a Senate controlled by and loyal to the central government. A state’s two Senators brought a level of equality of the states, especially in matters of national concern such as defense from foreign invasion, foreign relations and interstate commerce.
One historical argument for the Confederacy was its loyalty to states’ rights. Historians claim this was largely to retain slavery in the South. This was a straw dog for the Northern states to use to justify war. The North was leaning more away from the original Constitutional definition of states rights in favor of a strong central government.
Even though the South lost the Civil War and slaves were freed, most ended up in the British form of slavery. This meant the former slave or poor immigrant or uneducated were subject to a limited ability to earn a living only sufficient to survive under often terrible working conditions. It is interesting to note 150 years later, the most patriotic, constitutionally loyal states are in the South. The North sold its soul in favor of what would become the “progressive” movement and the unsavory Amendments of the early 20th Century which rapidly led to global war and massive depression. By contrast, the states of the Northeast where our history was born are most likely to ignore their solemn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution in favor of strong central and even one world government.
In between the Civil War and the period preceding World War I, there were financial panics, riots and strikes and general unrest as immigration rapidly increased and industrial production demands drew more people into the cities and away from the general independence of a rural lifestyle. People may have been poor in the rural areas, but they generally ate well and maintained a strong sense of self reliance. The loss of these in the industrial North created conditions for dependency. This in turn opened the door for the chicanery of today’s “progressive” movement largely populated by Democratic Party leadership and fellow travelers of both parties. Moral vacuums will surely be filled with something worse.
In the midst of labor strife of the 19th Century, the Catholic Church stepped in to protect the largely Catholic immigrants in the form of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum – on Capital and Labor.” He outlined the responsibilities of capital to assure a fair wage and working conditions for those they employ. This gave rise to the labor movement and the formation of unions to protect workers. This great gift of the Church to American Labor explains why most Catholics still embrace the Democrat Party – even though that party long ago turned its back on them.
Both Capital and Labor leadership reacted to having Judeo-Christian morality re-impressed on them by turning against not only the Church, but the Constitution. For Labor, it was the leaning to Communism and the corruption it brought along with the restoration of an “us vs. them” mentality even if the employer is fair and equitable. For Capital, it was the urge to control the monetary system and to centralize government where it could be controlled by capital and its speculations – not capitalism.
The pristine definition of Capitalism is in High-Finance’s role as the servant of commerce, investment in vision and courage, building personal and family savings and as a vehicle for philanthropy! Greed cannot handle such a wide and free distribution of the work of others.
Passing the 17th Amendment
If government is to be controlled by a small group, it must nullify states rights. Once central control is established, it becomes possible to control the monetary system extra-constitutionally. Until this time, an American was first known as “a Virginian,” “a New Yorker” – by his state of residence and property. The communal “American” came later.
States enjoyed the overall protection of a national military, but retained their own local law enforcement and militia’s under command of the Governor. This is still constitutionally true, but much of this has been usurped by the National Guard system and the modern rise of so-called Homeland Security which is attempting to override everything.
Without the 17th Amendment, Senators represented the specific interests of their states. With the 17th Amendment, popularly elected Senators soon found themselves representing what is often called “the common good” of the Senate’s exclusive club. The balance of representation with a bi-cameral Congress was thoroughly compromised. Within the states, the Governor, legislature and their balanced representation to the Federal government could well represent the needs of the local community – the state and for a prosperous and competitive role in a united nation.
The Philosophical Reason for Repealing the 17th Amendment
The Constitutional structure of the United States follows the ideal philosophical hierarchy of the equally important normative sciences of Philosophy.
1. Aesthetics (Beauty) – the Declaration of Independence and its acknowledgement of our Creator’s endowment balanced by a litany of the wrongs faced under despotism.
2. Ethics found in the Constitution to establish the rules of common discourse and behavior.
3. …and Logic of the Bill of Rights that protects the veracity and integrity of the Constitution.
This structure sets the natural flow of the next elements, Subsidiarity, Solidarity and Chaos leading to Harmony. The 17th Amendment disrupts the ideal order set by the Founders seeking the wisdom God offers those who ask for it.
1. Subsidiarity establishes the proper order of responsibility and term of assistance starting with the individual, the family, the community, the state and finally the federal government. The higher up the ladder of governance the shorter the term of assistance and regulation.
Before the 17th Amendment it was almost natural, often in spite of the machinations of leaders, elected, appointed or usurped – the system worked and had built in means of correction. The individual would be ashamed to accept charity beyond what meets his immediate needs.
The 17th Amendment violates Subsidiarity by moving a properly placed representative of authority higher up than is honestly manageable by those who are pledged the Senators’ loyalty and responsibility.
2. Solidarity – Every network has a hierarchy, no matter how invisible. With the 17th Amendment power brokers broke the Senators’ solidarity with their state legislators and therefore the people they represent at the proper level of subsidiarity.
3. Chaos – The Chaos of an expectant, curious and hard working people leads to the Harmony of discovery, development and the integrity of stewardship. Chaos of the streets occurs when rulers fail to carry out their responsibilities. This is also true when they do so after swearing a solemn oath to perform as expected within the framework of the Constitution and the wishes of the people who are likewise invested in the national order. This is a difficult task in a constitutional republic. It is impossible in a democracy, which over time will vote itself non-existent wealth and immoral privileges until it dies of depravity, debt and starvation.
The 17th Amendment contributes to chaos because it cannot allow the proper order of responsibility and rule. It must be repealed and the proper role of Senators representing the interests of the state they serve must take precedence.
Summary
The 17th Amendment must be repealed as a key part of returning our nation’s historically successful representative Constitutional Republic under God. The Senator must again represent the interests of his or her state at the pleasure of its legislature. This is essential to maintain a proper balance of governance that serves the greater interests of the state and the people who elected their legislators to govern the affairs of the state and those they send to Washington.
In The Cause of Restored Liberty
As Are All Classic Liberals
Publius cl/Wild Vortex
