27 votes

Republicae: The Fundamental Law of Sovereignty

Each of the Free, Sovereign and Independent States of this Union gave Assent to the Constitution and Ratified it, thus establishing the Constitution within the States themselves as the Law in conjunction with their individual State Constitutions, this act of Assent and Ratification subjected the Citizens of each of the States to the operation and function of the Constitution, yet, the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States. There is absolutely no contradiction between the Sovereignty of the States and the act of federalizing themselves into this voluntary union between them. The act of federalization was simply another act of Sovereignty, for federalization could have never taken place without their individual Sovereignty. The act of federalization did nothing but create and establish a functioning government that was deputized on behalf of the States, it neither transferred nor imbued sovereignty on the federal government and indeed, there is absolutely no sovereignty within the federal government, only limited delegated authority and power stemming from the Sovereignty of the States themselves.

No single act created this government, it was, in fact, the act of Nine Sovereign States that Ratified the Constitution, making it binding on those and only those States until the remaining States gave eventual Assent and Ratification, at which time, they too became parties to the voluntary union we know as THESE united [i.e. Associated by Treaty] States of America. Though the People of this country have grown accustom to the "nationalized" definition of Congress, as though it is an independent entity, it is, in fact, the united States in Congress Assembled. Congress is not a national "institution", it is nothing less than the Ambassadors of the Sovereign States Assembled. It is vital to understand just what took place when each of the Several States met in Convention to discuss and debate the Ratification of the Constitution and exactly how this action was viewed, it was most certainly not viewed as relinquishing any portion of the Sovereignty of the States themselves, otherwise the Constitution would have never been Ratification and we would have remained under the Articles of Confederation [which may or may not have been a good thing]. As an example, the Ordinance of Ratification from the State of New Hampshire concluded in 1788 and yet, to reiterate the Sovereign character of that State, in 1792 the New Hampshire Bill of Rights was added to her Constitution, several years after ratifying the federal Constitution, included were these words: Article VII: "The People of this State have the Sole and Exclusive Right of Governing themselves as a Free, Sovereign and Independent State; and do, and Forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every Power which is not, and my not hereafter be, by them, expressly delegated to the united States in Congress Assembled."

In addition, there is probably yet another portion of the New Hampshire example that is even more compelling and that is Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution, that is the Right of Revolution as declared: "Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

No power or authority has ever left the States, none has ever been relinquished by the States, even the power and authority delegated to the federal government remains within the jurisdiction of the States themselves and is only on loan to their agent deputized to act in trust of such delegated powers and authority. All power and authority belongs to the States after such delegation as before such delegation, as such, it is entrusted by the States to their "agents or substitutes" to act in concert to the will of the States and on their behalf. The act of federalization, of creating a federal government did not create a sovereign power, only a deputized agent to act in their stead and only upon the Sovereignty that stems from them, but no other. Thus the States federalized themselves, but never, in any respect, did they nationalize themselves. A federation of Sovereignties was created, all Free and Independent of each other, yet joined in a voluntary union based on a specific Agreement that contained specific obligations and requirements.

Every aspect of the type of government created through the Constitution is summed up by Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons: "A government, to be administered for the common good, by the servants of the People, vest with delegated powers, by popular elections, at stated periods. The federal Constitution establishes a government of this description, and in this case the People divest themselves of nothing; the government and the power which Congress can administer, are the mere result of a Compact made by the People with each other for their common defense and general welfare."

Roger Sherman, during the Ratifying Convention of the State of Connecticut declared: "The government of the united Stats being federal, and instituted by a number of Sovereign States for the better security of their Rights, and the advancement of their interests, they may be considered as so many pillars to support it."

During the federal Convention, the idea of a national government was not only rejected by the delegations from the States, but all reference to the word "national" was expunged from the Constitutions, in its place, the phrase "the government of the united States" was agreed to as best expressing the actual character and nature of this government of the States.

There is, found within the Constitution of the State of New York, a few very interesting declarations, declarations understood by all the Citizens of the Several States as beyond question, as being the most fundamental law: "the Sovereignty and Jurisdiction of this State extend to all the places within the boundaries thereof, as declared in the preceding title; but the extent of Jurisdiction over places that have been, or may be, ceded to the united States, shall be qualified by the terms of such cession." It must be noted that there is a substantial difference in the legal terminology used, though lands may have indeed been ceded to the government of the united States in terms of jurisdiction and that jurisdiction is qualified by the terms of such a cession, there is no mention that Sovereignty over such ceded territory has ever been ceded to the federal government of the united States. Additionally, the declaration is extended: "no member of this State shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the Rights and Privileges secured to any Citizen thereof; unless by Law of the Land, or judgment of his peers; no authority can, on any pretense whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this State, but such as it, or shall be, derived from, and granted by the People of this State."

We must come to an understanding, that the heirs of the Sovereignty of the Crown of Great Britain, was the People and that Sovereignty is expressed in the States or, it can be said that the States express the Sovereignty of the People for the People are the States and the States are the People. These expressions of Sovereignty, the States, each in its individual capacity as Sovereign, agreed on the Terms of Union between the States as the sole parties of that Agreement.

The idea that there is, in any form or fashion, any controlling power by a supreme national or central government is an absurdity, given the volumes of evidence to the contrary, not to mention the Constitution itself. There has been, for well over a hundred and fifty years, a concerted effort to create and propagate the false theory and doctrine of federal supremacy and sovereignty, for the most part, this effort has been extremely successful and equally as detrimental to the well-being of this country and the People of the States. It is utterly impossible to read the various documents, the writings, letters and legal opinions of the early years after The Declaration of Independent, the War years and then the union under the Articles of Confederation, to find an assertion that the federal powers would be superior or in any way supreme over the States. The old Son of Liberty, Samuel Adams emphatically proclaimed that a Bill of Rights would allow the People to: "see a line drawn, as clearly as may be, between the federal powers vested in Congress, and the distinct Sovereignty of the States."

It is rarely stated, but there were several proposals for the Bill of Rights, many of the States proposing Amendments, and while many of them were similar in tone and conception, there were some that stood out in terms of detail and concern. One of those proposals for the 10th Amendment was given by the State of North Carolina and declared: "That each State in the union shall respectively retain every power, Jurisdiction and Right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the united States, or to the departments of the federal government."

Another Amendment, in the spirit of the 10th, was proposed by the State of Rhode Island: "The united States shall guaranty to each State its Sovereignty, Freedoms, Independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and Right, which is not by this Constitution Expressly Delegated to the united States."

As is clearly evident, all of the States viewed themselves as absolutely and completely Sovereign, there was no question as to their character as Free, Sovereign and Independent States both before the Ratification and after the Ratification of the Constitution. So, to what end did the States exercise their Sovereignty? These Sovereignties associated themselves in a federal Compact for the express purpose "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty;". This association was to create one of the most unique and most incredible countries ever founded on the face of the earth and yet, usurpation and abuse of powers bestowed on this federal government has effectively destroyed the Republic and replaced its government, through a gradual, illegal coup d'état, with an alien, illegitimate consolidated government that is totally foreign to the intent and principles upon which this grand federation of Sovereign States was forged with the precious Blood of Patriots. There is the assumption that the current government is the government of the united States, but it is indeed a counterfeit, holding all the elements of the real government without the substance of the legitimate government of These united States of America.

This government and the condition this country finds itself in would be shocking to those who first conceived and established the Constitutional Republic, for today there is no Republic, only the very fragile shell of one. Indeed, if the Founders were alive today, they would once again find themselves in a Conflict of the Ages, a Revolution for Liberty fighting once again for Independence and Liberty. Without doubt, they would once again foment Revolution against the usurpation and abuse of power that has been concentrated within a government that has subverted its purpose for existing. They would remind the People of the Several States that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Moderators

Should be easy for you to delete this:

FREEDOM!

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I would like to offer a correction

Each of the Free, Sovereign and Independent States of this Union gave Assent to the Constitution and Ratified it, thus establishing the Constitution within the States themselves as the Law in conjunction with their individual State Constitutions, this act of Assent and Ratification subjected the Citizens of each of the States to the operation and function of the Constitution, yet, the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States.

The first nine free and independent states of "the Union, the perpetual union established "this Constitution" via ratification these states never "adopted" "this Constitution" for it was not in their power adoption would never take place no one no member of any legislature, no Representative no Senator no President would ever sign their name to the document or ever would subscribe to Article VI where in the requirement is to be bound by "this Constitution" to support "this Constitution" "This Constitution" is stated 10 time in the body of the Constitution dated 17 September 1787 which created "this union" not "the Union", "the Union was created by the Articles of Confederation 1777.

More falsehoods?

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

That is demonstrably false. The intent by many was, is, and will be to make their crimes legal, that is what they planned, that is what the did, and in order to get away with it they lies, so why do people keep regurgitating the lies as if regurgitation can somehow make lies true if repeated often enough?

Joe

Republicae's picture

Unfortunately Joe, you

Unfortunately Joe, you continue to make no real sense in what you are saying, there is absolutely no clarity in your words. You have yet to actually structure a rebuttal.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Senseless

The common resort by liars?

What to do when exposed?

Lie more?

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

"If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost."

If liars can't make sense of words, are they telling the truth or just lying?

I'm not going to expect a confession, that would be as foolish as this:

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

The lying criminals who called themselves "Federalists" (when they were Nationalists, Monarchists, and Central Bankers in reality) most certainly considered "the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force" "outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States" as they meant to enslave all the people in those soon to be usurped "States".

"This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments."

Get out your calculators?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Note: "National"

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments."

Of whose interest is it to calculate in that false way?

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

I'm going to guess, a wild guess:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/labadie/2916966.0001.001/2?page=...

Joe

Republicae's picture

It is quite obvious that you

It is quite obvious that you have not read my any of my writings Joe and therefore assume many, many things and upon assumption castigate me falsely and without regard to the truth. You rail against me and call me, a liar when all the time you are bearing false witness with your slandering comments without understanding that we are fighting against the very same thing, yet you continue to rail.
Track my postings Joe...go ahead, I dare you to...You will find in my writings, such as “The Bloodline of Tyranny”, “The 17th Amendment and The Nationalized Senate”, “Statism: A Bankrupt Ideology”, “Rights Retained by the People”, Freedom Contingent Upon Compliance Is Not Freedom”, “The Enemies of Good Government”, ”The Death Knell Rings for the Federal Reserve”, “Assault by Domestic Traitors”, “Pamphleteers of the Revolution”, “How Supreme is the Supreme Court?”, “The Claim to Sovereignty”, etc., my writings over the last 5 years are all here on the DP if you care to read them and then offer me an apology. My postings of the articles other writers such as Hamilton's Counterfeit Capitalism and others decrying the Coup of Hamilton and Marshall.

You don't even know but you are presenting the very same argument that I have and do present, but you are too busy straining at gnats while swallowing camels. You are hard-pressed to make the type of arguments against me that you do, all you need to do is read my writings, ask anyone here on the DP about me and you will find that I am not only an Anti-Statist, but also an avid enemy of all that Hamilton and the other Monarchist represented or supported. You will find, in my writings, that I am hold the opinion that The Federalist Party, the Whig Party and the Radical Republican Party were nothing more than the same Party with different names but with the exact same goals, those goals were finally realized in the 1860s with Lincoln's Coup and the massive over-throw of the Republic.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Not wandering can be a goal.

"My postings of the articles other writers such as Hamilton's Counterfeit Capitalism and others decrying the Coup of Hamilton and Marshall."

My references to lies has to do with specific things specified, not anything under the sun.

I use quotes, since I do not want to willfully wander away from what you actually publish.

"You don't even know but you are presenting the very same argument that I have and do present, but you are too busy straining at gnats while swallowing camels."

That is called spin.

I don't do that, and what I actually did do was to call you on a false (dangerously false) statement. That is what I did.

Your straw man does this:

"You don't even know but you are presenting the very same argument that I have and do present, but you are too busy straining at gnats while swallowing camels."

This, on the other hand, is dangerously false (in my offered opinion):

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

I have, in fact, expanded on my opinion concerning how that is dangerously false.

My supposed Man of Straw (the Man of Straw that you create) does this:

"You don't even know but you are presenting the very same argument that I have and do present, but you are too busy straining at gnats while swallowing camels."

That is designed to expose dangerously false statements or is that designed to inflame someone?

I'm not playing the game of being inflamed by someone who may be designing a Man of Straw so as to inflame the target of the Man of Straw.

"I am not only an Anti-Statist"

Not knowing what you mean by that, I can ask.

What do you mean when you choose the term "Anti-Statist"?

I am for any State (legal fiction) that is a voluntary government employed by the volunteers so as to collect the power required to defend liberty against criminals, or enemies, from without and from within that voluntary government of those volunteers.

So, in that context, I am not "Anti-State" and if you are, then in that context, you are dangerous to Liberty, in my opinion.

"an avid enemy of all that Hamilton and the other Monarchist represented or supported"

I don't know what to make of that either. Hamilton is dead. Currently there are a lot of dangerous people who appear to think that all government is bad and so they parade around as being Anti-State as if to then create a false version of anarchism whereby those false versions of anarchism are somehow against volunteering to defend liberty in any way whatsoever.

There are plenty of so called anarchists who understood how volunteers can volunteer to defend liberty when needed, in history, and today. Currently the enemies of Liberty are authorized to run criminal governments like that one created in 1788 by that abomination called The Constitution.

Getting back to The Constitution itself, can hardly be considered a goal, since The Bill of Rights is much preferred, in my opinion, as a rule book, and one that opposes the other, former, book of "RULERS" (interpreters who spin The Constitution into meaning whatever they care to create for the occasion).

"You will find, in my writings, that I am hold the opinion that The Federalist Party, the Whig Party and the Radical Republican Party were nothing more than the same Party with different names but with the exact same goals, those goals were finally realized in the 1860s with Lincoln's Coup and the massive over-throw of the Republic."

I think, contrary to what I think you think (which is a guess on my part at this point), that The Constitution marks the point at which there was a massive over-throw of a Republic - if ever one exists.

What is a Republic according to you, and how is a Republic designed to work, according to you, or according to anyone else for that matter?

I have my own concept in mind, and my ideas are expressed in other words as well as my own, so I can answer the questions asked in more than one competitive way, to then compare with any answer that may or many not be offered by you, or anyone else.

Joe

Republicae's picture

Joe, I have been on the DP

Joe, I have been on the DP for over 5 years now, my writings are extremely clear and if you took the time to track and read them you will find that I have stated exactly what you are stating now. I am a militant Jeffersonian, considered by many to be radically opposed to all that has taken place in this country, especially since the Coup of that Hamiltonian disciple Abraham Lincoln and his Radical Republican Party. You don't even realize that we are saying the same thing, but you have instead chosen one phrase out of context and based an entire argument upon it. I find that odd considering the length of the essay I wrote, surely there if there was one phrase you could argue about there were others that equally caused you grief, yet you have only focused on that one phrase and because of it you have not only falsely labeled me as a conspirator of Hamiltonian color, but you have called me a liar on top of it. Far from being honorable, you have made assumptions and those assumptions are not only incorrect, as my writings on the DP for the last 5 years will attest to, but those assumptions make you look like a fool in the light of those writings.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Wandering and created lies *SPIN" again?

"You don't even realize that we are saying the same thing, but you have instead chosen one phrase out of context and based an entire argument upon it."

That is spin.

I'm not arguing. What do you mean when you employ that word, in English, argument?

I see no point in arguing.

You published a false statement. I called you on it. Now you are creating an ever expanding series of lies to cover up the first one. This is a familiar story.

Why not just stick to the point of focus concerning your false statement, if you have a contention concerning the measure of just how false your statement is in fact. If you have no contention as to just exactly how false your statement is, in fact, then why argue, and why create a Man of Straw that does things that you then blame me for doing, when in reality your SPIN is only YOURS, not mine.

I did not write, nor do I think, this:

"the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

So this can't be true:

"You don't even realize that we are saying the same thing, but you have instead chosen one phrase out of context and based an entire argument upon it."

Why dabble in lies, they never end.

"but you have called me a liar on top of it."

I was specific, not ambiguous, and you are ambiguous, not specific, what does that specifically prove in fact.

You are publishing ambiguities.

I publish specifics.

What does that prove, in fact?

"Far from being honorable, you have made assumptions and those assumptions are not only incorrect, as my writings on the DP for the last 5 years will attest to, but those assumptions make you look like a fool in the light of those writings."

I am a fool, admitted, look how wasteful I am with my time and energy right now, defending against your SPIN.

Now I am "far from honorable", so just exactly how much worse can your Man of Straw get until such time as you shoot the Parthian Arrow?

If you had not published the false statement, knowing myself, I'd have no false statement to challenge competitively.

End of story?

Joe

Republicae's picture

Ok, let us focus only on the

Ok, let us focus only on the FRAGMENT of a statement that you “pull out” and consider, for a reason that I have yet to fully understand, as “dangerously false”, the argument that you have made makes no sense whatsoever in consideration of the entire subject of the essay itself. I could understand if your argument was focused on the whole article, but it is extremely narrowly focused on a fragment of a sentence, seemingly without regard to the entire essay, even without regard to the entire statement. I find it quite odd to build an argument on such fragmentation. You have, time and again simply ignored the actual position taken in the essay and rather taken that fragment and used it to distort that position and misrepresent me as a liar. Yet you have the gall to accuse me as presenting "Straw Man" arguments when you have presented the classic "Straw Man" argument yourself.

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

Read that statement again within the context of the whole and then tell me what it means within that context rather than as a fragment upon which you have built your argument and continue to SPIN that fragment into something that it simply does not say:

“Each of the Free, Sovereign and Independent States of this Union gave Assent to the Constitution and Ratified it, thus establishing the Constitution within the States themselves as the Law in conjunction with their individual State Constitutions, this act of Assent and Ratification subjected the Citizens of each of the States to the operation and function of the Constitution, yet, the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States. There is absolutely no contradiction between the Sovereignty of the States and the act of federalizing themselves into this voluntary union between them. The act of federalization was simply another act of Sovereignty, for federalization could have never taken place without their individual Sovereignty. The act of federalization did nothing but create and establish a functioning government that was deputized on behalf of the States, it neither transferred nor imbued sovereignty on the federal government and indeed, there is absolutely no sovereignty within the federal government, only limited delegated authority and power stemming from the Sovereignty of the States themselves.”

Above is the opening paragraph upon which the rest of the essay builds upon. The statement is then supported by the remainder of the essay and yet, you have asserted that one fragment of a statement is patently false and called me a liar on top of it. The statement refers to the finished Constitution as presented to the State Conventions considered for Ratification, not the Debates or any quotes that stem from those Debates.

Again, in support of that statement I wrote the following: “It is vital to understand just what took place when each of the Several States met in Convention to discuss and debate the Ratification of the Constitution and exactly how this action was viewed, it was most certainly not viewed as relinquishing any portion of the Sovereignty of the States themselves, otherwise the Constitution would have never been Ratification and we would have remained under the Articles of Confederation [which may or may not have been a good thing]. As an example, the Ordinance of Ratification from the State of New Hampshire concluded in 1788 and yet, to reiterate the Sovereign character of that State, in 1792 the New Hampshire Bill of Rights was added to her Constitution, several years after ratifying the federal Constitution, included were these words: Article VII: "The People of this State have the Sole and Exclusive Right of Governing themselves as a Free, Sovereign and Independent State; and do, and Forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every Power which is not, and my not hereafter be, by them, expressly delegated to the united States in Congress Assembled."

The Delegation of power from the States did not, in any way, relinquish any portion of the Sovereignty of the States. Nor did the States relinquish any jurisdiction, it was retained and an example of that fact can be found in the Constitution of the State of New York:
"the Sovereignty and Jurisdiction of this State extend to all the places within the boundaries thereof, as declared in the preceding title; but the extent of Jurisdiction over places that have been, or may be, ceded to the united States, shall be qualified by the terms of such cession."

"The SUPREME, ABSOLUTE AND UNCONTROLLABLE POWER IS IN THE PEOPLE before they make the Constitution, and remains in them after it is made...The absolute SOVEREIGNTY never goes from the People." James Wilson of Pennsylvania

"The SOVEREIGNTY of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North America: with us ALL POWER IS WITH THE PEOPLE. THEY ALONE ARE SOVEREIGN; and will erect what governments they please and confer on them such power as they please. NONE of these governments is sovereign." Daniel Webster (who later became a Nationalist)

"That the people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive Right of governing themselves, as a Free, Sovereign, and Independent State; and they will Forever exercise every Power and Right, which may not be by them Expressly Delegated to the united States, assembled in Congress;

That all Power, residing originally in the People, and being derived from them, all officers of government are their Substitutes and Agents, and are at all times Accountable to them;

And, finally, that the People of the commonwealth alone, have an inalienable and indefeasible Right to institute government, and to reform, alter or totally change the same, whenever they think their safety and happiness require it." The Massachusetts Constitution

All of these, and there are obviously numerous other references, describe the exact same thing as did the statement I made. The States, being the expression of the Sovereignty of the People are to act upon that same Sovereignty and only in the interest of that Sovereignty, at least that was the plan; so too, was the Constitution between the States based upon the Sovereignty of the People as expressed within their respective States.

You have indeed made false statements and have build your argument on false premise, you have accused me of lying. I don't see any honor in that at all, do you? Rather than explaining yourself, the first statement you made was to say that the fragment you cited was patently false, that was the sum of your rebuttal; since then you have continued without ever really making a case. If there is anyone crafting a "straw man" argument that would appear to be you Joe.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Quicky running out of time.

If you say "OK, lets focus only on the..., which you did publish, then why wander so far off of it?

I don't have time to address more of the same character assassination routine at this time. I can get back later.

Joe

Republicae's picture

Character assassination? Was

Character assassination? Was it not you that called me a liar? I'm not sure how you think I wandered so far off of it since the documents I cite support the full statement. What you apparently think is proper is to take a fragment, distort it and then, for some reason use that as evidence that I am seeking to deceive people, that is what you are attempting to say, is it not?

You have yet to tell me, though I have asked, what the full statement means in the context of the entire message or even in the context of the paragraph or what you think it means.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Josf is a Lysander Spooner purveyor...

It is a slippery slope, IMO, but a contract is not valid unless one signs it personally. That has been the nature of contracts for a few hundred years. As a result, the Constitution was only ratified by a small group of people. At the time, many were unable to vote - blacks, women, men without property. The Constitution was not signed by everyone and therefore should not be legally binding with any respect to traditional common laws regarding contracts.

However, like I said, this argument is a slippery slope. Modern proponents of mob rule (democracy) would possibly try to use the argument to support their desire for majority tyranny - which was very far from Spooner's intentions. Spooner would have more likely condoned individual sovereignty and natural rights - aspiring to anarchy.

I haven't read every word written in this thread by Josf or yourself. So, please forgive me if I've missed something important. I would be happy to reply further if I have.

The spinners (liars) Union?

Do you guys get paid or is this strictly done for fun (no monetary profit)?

"Josf is a Lysander Spooner purveor..."

What does that mean?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purveyor

1
: one that purveys
2
: victualler, caterer

First off: Leave me out of it please. Moving off the topic and moving onto me, my motives imagined, or any other topic, off the topic, onto me personally, is not nice. Why do it?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purveys

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peddle

intransitive verb
1
: to travel about with wares for sale; broadly : sell
2
: to be busy with trifles : piddle
transitive verb
1
: to sell or offer for sale from place to place : hawk; broadly : sell
2
: to deal out or seek to disseminate
3
: to offer or promote as valuable

OK, so now I am someone selling Lysander Spooner?

What happened to the topic?

"I haven't read every word written in this thread by Josf or yourself. So, please forgive me if I've missed something important. I would be happy to reply further if I have."

Despite the initial move onto me personally, your words inspire deep thought.

This:

"The Constitution was not signed by everyone and therefore should not be legally binding with any respect to traditional common laws regarding contracts."

Here is where the actual reality of the situation, not what I think, or you, or what Lysander Spooner thought, works itself out. There are Gangs of New York, and Gangs of New Jersey, and Gangs of Utah still doing what Gangs do, and they all still agree, all the Leaders of all the Gangs, agree that the biggest Gang around is the biggest Gang around, so they, all those separate Gangs, they, they, those Gang leaders, all, lick the boots of the Money Monopoly Power.

"The Constitution was not signed by everyone and therefore should not be legally binding with any respect to traditional common laws regarding contracts."

I think that the viewpoint expressed in those words is a superficial viewpoint at best, and at worst a dangerous one.

The power struggle is exactly what it is at any given moment and it is not otherwise something imagined, and in cases where someone is proceeding to engage in the power struggle, directed by falsehood, then that is a weakness, not a strength, unless that person, that individual, is incredibly lucky.

The concept of Mob Rule, for example, is superficial, and demonstrably false, from many angles, depending upon how that concept is measured by the person infected with that falsehood.

The people I call Legal Criminals, or the people who other people call Despots, same people, different name, and my label is more accurate, competitively more accurate, but the point is that the same people fear any power that may be more powerful than their power.

They, not us, fear the Mob Rule that they fear, and therefore it is in their best interest, in the best interest of the Legal Criminals, to convince, by fraud, The People (targets/tax payers/marks/victims), that "we" fear Mob Rule.

To put this in more precise terms, what the Legal Criminals fear, and what the Legal Criminals call MOB RULE is, for one very good example, 12 people on a jury.

12 people on a Jury, in Common Law, a real Trial by Jury, is what Legal Criminals fear, and if Legal Criminals can convince all those people who potentially empower themselves by sitting on a Common Law Trial by Jury into a false belief that "we" (all of us not just the criminals) fear Mob Rule, then something happens, as a result of that falsehood.

What happens as a result of the lie that says that we fear Mob Rule so named?

The proof is in the pudding.

Joe

You lie

And you keep doing it. I think there is no point in continuing such an exchange, what would be the point?

Joe

Republicae's picture

Joe, it is quite obvious that

Joe, it is quite obvious that you are a distorter, you have intentionally maligned people,including myself, taken fragments of sentences and built and elaborate framework of deception around such fragments seeking to castigate and slander. What is your purpose here, for it cannot be to advance the conversation in any meaningful way or to arrive at the truth. Both the wording and tone of your words in your comments speak volumes Joe, and what they speak is far from commendable.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Hear, hear!

We had rights before rich white men presented the nation with their Constitution! There was a time when people had rights and the government struggled for more power over them The people thought the fight was done. Perhaps it was long ago lost. Perhaps we can win it back.

And why not?

"Perhaps we can win it back."

No matter how bad it does get, from this day forward, are there any other choices once the false choices are avoided?

1. End the FED
2. End the IRS
3. Bring the Troops Home (not to enforce "better" versions of 1 and 2)

Do so by a specific day and then throw a party.

How about Liberty Day, as a Challenge, for July 4th this year?

Joe

I see other choices.

1. Freedom of Currency (effectively Separation of Money and State). If I am paid in anything other than dollars and do not fill out IRS forms, as no law requires anyone to do, they only get what I give them. The same goes for everone. All we need to do to "End the Fed" and leave the IRS sitting on their thumbs is go on about our business in one of the infinite ways they do not already control. The more difficult part is eliminating the W2 as a corporate condition of employment. There will need to be a few lawsuits, and amendments to state constitutions would be a great step. Given the choice between payment the government steals a portion of and payment you get to keep, people choose the untaxed option just about every time. If they did not feel threatened, the choice would be clear. Without the labor of Americans as illegal collateral, the Fed would be obselete quickly enough. They could hang out in regulated soup kitchens with the IRS workers and New York's finest after we are done reclaiming their holdings and OUR gold.

2. It will be up to us to peacefully repatriate the military into state, community and individual hands where the people make the choices about war.

Further comment

Not needed. But thanks.

Joe

Open for competitive review?

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

That is patently false.

Joe

Republicae's picture

A statement, such as "That is

A statement, such as "That is patently false" does not form an adequate rebuttal, thus it is difficult to reply unless you expound on what you think is patently false about the statement. Since you think that is patently false, tell me exactly what that statement means in construing the Constitution with regards to the Sovereignty of the States? Also, if you read the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 and also the The Debates in the Several State Conventions you will find that is exactly what those who framed and later Ratified the Constitution considered it to be. It could not be otherwise if all power and authority delegated within the Constitution was delegated from the States to begin with, where else would such jurisdiction be held? Indeed, in many of the Ordinances of Ratification, there are statements that mirror the one I made and even go as far as concluding that even if territory is ceded to the federal government by a State, that such cession does not, in any way, relinquish the jurisdiction of the State over that territory or outside the parameters of the Treaty of 1787 of which the States are the only parties.

Either the originating power and authority stems from the delegating power or it is, in one manner or the other, simply usurped power. It can not be any other way, power does not simply exist without first having residence within a reservoir, that reservoir being the People expressing their Sovereignty through the States. The highest expression of Sovereignty is the ability to form and establish government.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Proof is in the pudding?

"Either the originating power and authority stems from the delegating power or it is, in one manner or the other, simply usurped power."

So which is it in fact?

Example:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who hath favored us with a eulogium in favor of this system, must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently acquainted."

A. Voluntary Government
B. Usurpation

Which is it?

A. "the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."
B. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

A. "the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."
B. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/

There is a long list.

An absolute statement such as "never considered" as in "never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States." appears to leave out a whole lot of individuals who were publishing any lie that could work toward usurpation and a whole lot of individuals who were blowing that tune.

"Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to the very worthy gentleman for his encomium. I wish I was possessed with talents, or possessed of any thing that might enable me to elucidate this great subject. I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts. I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England—a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland—an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."

A. "the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

That is clearly (patently) false (if accurate perception is worth a hoot).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/patently

Joe

Republicae's picture

What is interesting Joe is

What is interesting Joe is that you take one sentence from the context of the whole and upon that make an assertion that is solely based upon and dependent on taking that one sentence out of the whole context. The context is the final measure of the Constitution that was agreed upon, in that measure the Constitution, as a binding force, was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States, that fact is witness within the Conventions of the Several States as they debated Ratification, indeed, in the Debates of the Constitution that fact again was agreed upon. I never indicated nor asserted that such a position was not debated upon during the Conventions, only that the term and the inferred meaning of "national" were expunged from the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that it is simply not possible for the jurisdiction of the Constitution to be outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States who delegated the power in the first place otherwise we would never have had a republican form of government, nor for that matter would we have had federalism. What we would have had from the beginning is nationalism instead.

It is also very evident that you have either never read any of my other work on the subject, or have simply chosen to ignore the fact that I am well aware of the many people involved with the writing of the Constitution that were Monarchist or consolidationist to one degree or another, such as Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall. In fact, the Virginia Plan as first proposed was a very Statist plan, yet it was thankfully rejected by the delegates of the States, so too were most of the proposals of Alexander Hamilton who wanted a President for life. None of those facts have been ignored nor overlooked, although you seem to assert that I have simply ignored a portion of history, to the contrary, my subject was on the Sovereignty of the States as expressed in and through the Constitution as Ratified and later amended with the Bill of Rights.

While I am sure you are putting forth a great deal of effort, it appears that you should perhaps go back and read not only the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, but also read the Conventions of the Several States as well as, the Ordinances of Ratification of those States. Those are perhaps the clearest example of exactly what is meant by the statement you seem to want to pull out of the context of the whole.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Break

"What we would have had from the beginning is nationalism instead."

I cut off the steady flow of bull at that point. Your steady flow of bull is typical, easy to recognize, and worthy of challenge, otherwise your steady flow of bull aught to be saved for use as entertainment I suppose, if used at all by any bull artist.

BS

You get another BS break.

"What we would have had from the beginning is nationalism instead."

Anyone caring to know better knows what Dictators do to gain power, such as Alexander Hamilton seeking a legal money monopoly. They, the criminals, like Hamilton, lie.

So do you.

What of it?

What does that have to do with me?

You can pretend to be an authority over what I say, or what I do, but failing to actually employ what I say, or what I do, in quotes, or in English, and instead propping up your Man of Straw in place of what I actually say, or do, with your "versions" of what you falsely claim is what I do, is typical.

Liars do it all the time.

One of the reasons for usurping the extremely imperfect Union under The Articles of Confederation was Shays's Rebellion whereby the Rebels who were still honoring their duty as declared in The Declaration of Independence lost that Revolutionary War in the then Sovereign State of Massachusetts. Sovereign in the sense that the criminals took over the government and created slaves out of the people in Massachusetts. The losers of the Revolutionary War in Massachusetts fled, like any runaway slave would, to somewhere else, and they fled to Vermont, another Sovereign State in the Democratic Federated Republic of the day, under very imperfect Articles of Confederation.

As imperfect as those rule may have been, they didn't authorize a Dictator to enslave slaves into acting as counterfeit soldiers to invade one of the formerly Sovereign States so as to crush a money competitor.

That was why the Nationalists like Hamilton pulled Washington out of retirement so as to usurp the imperfect voluntary Union and create a Despotic Nation State, and you, fool, can lie all you want, and feint stupidity all you want, but it is all well recorded as historical fact.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/...

" And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";

"And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;"

Nation States, so called, have to crush the competition.

Moving on after the break:

"you seem to assert that I have simply ignored a portion of history"

What I "seem to assert" (your words not mine) and what I do are two different things. I do what I do, the genuine article, and you falsify, spin, change, alter, counterfeit, what I do, in your own, false, words.

What I did was to point out a false sentence and then point out how false the false sentence was, in fact.

I did this:

"An absolute statement such as "never considered" as in "never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States." appears to leave out a whole lot of individuals who were publishing any lie that could work toward usurpation and a whole lot of individuals who were blowing that tune."

What is false?

False statements, for one example, are false.

True or false?

False statements, for one example, are false.

How about an example of a false statement?

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

That is patently false.

Anyone open for a competitive review, or is it more likely that the author of the false statement will resort to any tactic of lies that works to crush the competition?

1. Straw Man argument (for the sake of argument).

2. Hyperbole

It is a long list.

The statement is false, it employs an absolute word that is absolutely false, if taken literally, and if the word is taken figuratively, then is the word meant to be entertaining, as in playing on person's emotion (for effect), or is the word choice a willful distortion of the facts, for some reason?

I can't know, but the statement is false.

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

The statement is dangerously false according to my perspective that can be offered in competition with any other review of the words being published on this competitive forum.

Alexander Hamilton was a very dangerous person because of false statements made by that liar, so as to usurp Liberty in this country, which is what he helped do, in fact, and Alexander Hamilton most certainly did, in fact, consider that the Constitution was to be a method by which all Sovereignty of the States would be Crushed, and that is why the example offered, with the Whiskey Rebellion, proves the point - in FACT.

"Those are perhaps the clearest example of exactly what is meant by the statement you seem to want to pull out of the context of the whole."

What I "seem to want to pull" and what I do are two different things. As a courtesy, in my own estimate, if not yours, I stopped reading your offering at the point at which I found a false statement, so as to put that false statement up for competitive review.

Anyone care to review the false statement in a competitive manner?

What could happen from that point on is what is happening, and what is happening is your resort to deception as a means of crushing the competition: a familiar story.

Routine.

The false statement - again:

" the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States."

The criminals among us, those who can be accurately known as enemies within, lie.

They lie.

Why?

They lie to get away with other crimes.

Their lies are fraud, crimes, bad guy stuff.

Why lie?

In the case of the events that became knows as the Con-Con of 1787 there were lies made so as to remove Common Law as a POWER an in place of it there would be Legal Crime.

People who argue for the sake of argument are apt to do so for a reason, but they do not often confess that reason.

I won't be holding my breath.

Joe

Republicae's picture

It is quite obvious that you

It is quite obvious that you have not read my any of my writings Joe and therefore assume many, many things and upon assumption castigate me falsely and without regard to the truth. You rail against me and call me, a liar when all the time you are bearing false witness with your slandering comments without understanding that we are fighting against the very same thing, yet you continue to rail. What I find really interesting Joe is that you have not commented on my other post entitled "The Republic of Sovereigns", surely if you have found one phrase, and apparently only one, to castigate me on in this article, surely you should be able to find more, not only in this essay but in the other one, as well as all my writings posted here on the DP for the last 5 years.

Track my postings Joe...go ahead, I dare you to...You will find in my writings, such as “The Bloodline of Tyranny”, “The 17th Amendment and The Nationalized Senate”, “Statism: A Bankrupt Ideology”, “Rights Retained by the People”, Freedom Contingent Upon Compliance Is Not Freedom”, “The Enemies of Good Government”, ”The Death Knell Rings for the Federal Reserve”, “Assault by Domestic Traitors”, “Pamphleteers of the Revolution”, “How Supreme is the Supreme Court?”, “The Claim to Sovereignty”, etc., my writings over the last 5 years are all here on the DP if you care to read them and then offer me an apology. My postings of the articles other writers such as Hamilton's Counterfeit Capitalism and others decrying the Coup of Hamilton and Marshall.

You have lumped me in with the Nationalist Hamilton, if that were true then surely you should be able to prove it in the volume of writings that I have posted here on the DP. You should be able to do it with this essay alone, yet you continue to rail against one phrase and build your case that one phrase makes me not only a Hamiltonian Statist, but also a liar. Your argument is far from sound and my writings prove contrary to your false accusations.

You don't even know but you are presenting the very same argument that I have and do present, but you are too busy straining at gnats while swallowing camels. You are hard-pressed to make the type of arguments against me that you do, all you need to do is read my writings, ask anyone here on the DP about me and you will find that I am not only an Anti-Statist, but also an avid enemy of all that Hamilton and the other Monarchist represented or supported. You will find, in my writings, that I am hold the opinion that The Federalist Party, the Whig Party and the Radical Republican Party were nothing more than the same Party with different names but with the exact same goals, those goals were finally realized in the 1860s with Lincoln's Coup and the massive over-throw of the Republic.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

More spin

"to castigate me on in this article"

The false statement was challenged competitively.

That is what I did.

Then you began to produce SPIN (lies), so now those lies, and that spin, is being challenged.

I have little interest in you personally.

"to castigate me on in this article"

For all I know "you" could be a very sophisticated computer program and even that "personality", or lack thereof, is of no interest to me.

I have nothing to do with your personality, it is against the rules to go around assassinating someone's character, and I don't do that, because I have no interest in doing that, not because that is against the rules.

Putting your character aside I am focusing my power of attention on the published words as such:

"to castigate me on in this article"

That is Spin, that is a focus of attention away from what I actually publish, and that is a new focus of attention upon a nebulous intent of someone to do something, to reach the goal of castigating someone.

I did no such thing, and what I did do is published in English and therefore quotable, or erasable, if someone has the power to erase the actual words that I actually did publish.

I did not do this:

"to castigate me on in this article"

I have no interest in castigating any person.

"Your argument is far from sound and my writings prove contrary to your false accusations."

I'm not arguing, and what I am doing does not require your spinning to make what I am doing real, when I publish words those words are what I am doing, and your version of what I am doing is defining what you are doing - spinning.

Example:

You are spinning.

Is that true or not?

Here is a specific example of you spinning:

"Your argument is far from sound and my writings prove contrary to your false accusations."

That is an example of you spinning. If you want to acknowledge an example of one of my accusations then you can acknowledge one of my accusations (as you put it) by quoting my published words, and then providing a specific example of what I am actually writing.

You are spinning.

That can be called an accusation, but it is true, even if you call it an accusation, you are spinning in fact.

Does it depend upon what is is or are you spinning in fact?

If you were not spinning in fact then why don't you quote the words that you then spin so as to then have my words handy to compare to your spun version of my words?

"You will find, in my writings, that I am hold the opinion that The Federalist Party, the Whig Party and the Radical Republican Party were nothing more than the same Party with different names but with the exact same goals, those goals were finally realized in the 1860s with Lincoln's Coup and the massive over-throw of the Republic."

I have many faults. One of my faults is to discredit all the words published by someone who publishes lies about me personally?

Joe

PLEASE READ

The FOUR most important facts is that the first two Organic Laws created a Confederacy of thirteen States, which have retained their sovereignty, freedom and independence by binding themselves to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 in perpetuity and those States, have done nothing to change it.
Second, on February 21, 1787, the rough and tumble era of post revolution freedom begins its decline when the Confederation Congress passes a resolution convening what became the May 25, 1787 Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation.
That same Confederation Congress enacted what became, the third Organic Law, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, which provided for a temporary government for that territory and all future territory owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of America.
Third, on September 17,1787, the Constitutional Convention, now consisting of eleven States, resolved to submit the Constitution of September 17, 1787 to the Confederation Congress for submission to the thirteen States for possible ratification. If ratified by nine States, the Constitution of September 17, 1787 would be a revision of the Articles of Confederation and Northwest Ordinance.
The fourth is that the last Organic Law of the United States of America, the Constitution of September 17, 1787, was ratified by New Hampshire, the ninth State on June 21, 1788. Ratification by New Hampshire established the Constitution of September 17, 1787 between that State and these eight States named in the order of their ratification: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland and South Carolina.

Elections for President of the United States of America, Representatives in the House of Representatives and Senators in the Senate were held in the first nine States to ratify the Constitution plus the State of Virginia. The first Congress under the Constitution convened on March 4, 1789 in New York City about a year before any Senator could meet the nine years a Citizen of the United States eligibility set out in Article I Section 3 Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The thirteen colonies which freed themselves from Great Britain did not become the United States of America until March 1, 1781, when the Articles of Confederation were fully ratified. The newly elected Senators were not qualified under the Constitution of September 17, 1787, however, they qualified as Senators or delegates under the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777.
The foregoing interpretation of the Organic Laws of the United States of America is confirmed by the actions of the man who presided at the May 25, 1787 Constitutional Convention, George Washington, who was elected President of the United States of America on April 6, 1789 in strict accordance with Article II Section 1 Clause 3. "This Constitution" imposes no eligibility requirements on the person who is elected to the office of President of the United States of America or President of the United States. Article II Section 1 Clause 5 requires among other eligibility that the person who is to fill the Office of President must be "fourteen Years a Resident within the United States," making that office unavailable until after July 4, 1790. History proves George Washington took the oral oath of office to be President of the United States on April 30, 1789: “I, George Washington, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” “So help me God.”
That oral oath converted the attempted revision of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 into a military administration of the territory owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of America. The military occupation of America has been prolonged by the misconception that the Constitution of September 17, 1787 replaced the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, although it is true where the territory is owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of America.

Also, this...Page 880 is the most important page from the Journals of the Continental Congress there will be found the absence of a quorum. Page 880 shows Congress to be in recess until it reconvenes on March 4, 1789 in New York City still under the authority of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, but now as revised by the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

Quickly

"those States, have done nothing to change it."

States cannot do anything.

In fact a Dictator named Washington conscripted an Army in 1794 and then invaded Pennsilvania to collect on a tax, which was to enforce a money monopoly.

Washington did something. A State did nothing, it can't, a State is a fictitious legal being, so it is merely a convenience to employ one name, State, instead of listing all the names of all the people who do things in that State.

I don't have time for this, so if you want to competitively offer viewpoints then address your understanding of what Washington did during what became known as The Whiskey Rebellion.

Shays's Rebellion occurred under The Articles of Confederation, in one State, Massachusetts.

Those events that became known as Shays's Rebellion exemplify how The Articles of Confederation Limited what "The President" could or could not do, and that can be compared to what was done by "The President" after The Articles of Confederation were replaced as the excuse, or "rationale" (or argument) for what Washington did in Pennsylvania.

Joe

Republicae's picture

That is almost hilarious Joe,

That is almost hilarious Joe, you accuse me of posting falsehoods and yet look at what you wrote. First, there was no “president” under The Articles of Confederation, there was therefore, no way to limit “the president” to what he could or could not do when there existed no “president”. That is a patently false Joe.

Shay's Rebellion was not much of a rebellion, those involved were mainly people who had served in the Revolutionary War, the veterans, overburdened with the State's taxation on them to pay for the debts of the war, began to form regiments, the talk of rebellion began to surface. The actual rebellion and the actions take to subdue it were so insubstantial that it is hardly worth mentioning. The rebels attempted to storm a federal arsenal and when the arsenal fired two volleys from their cannons the rebels scattered and the rebellion was over.

Again, you are incorrect, and make false statements yet once more. There is no doubt that the Whiskey Rebellion was more of an actual rebellion than Shay's, but it appears that you are simply distorting facts once again to promote your agenda, whatever that might be.

Alexander Hamilton, betrayer of the Revolution, used his slippery tongue to persuade Congress to pass an excise tax as a supplement to revenues. Hamilton called the whiskey tax a luxury tax, but no one, not even Hamilton thought that there would be an uproar about the tax since whiskey had been taxed prior to the War without any real discord. What sparked the unrest was that soon rumors spread that not only would whiskey be taxed, but the government would also tax food, clothing and other trade goods.

The reality of the tax was that it ended up being a tax on money, those in the western territories depended on rye whiskey, not only as commodity to sale, but also as a barter item, thus when a 25% excise tax on whiskey hit the entire region was in open revolt, the fact that the tax collector of those taxes received a great sum for his services didn't set too well with the farmers and inhabitants of the region either.

The tax had been implemented in 1792 and while there were some protest, it didn't amount to much. Yet, as anger grew so grew the degree of violence heaped against the tax collectors and those who decided to pay the taxes, they were subjected to being kidnapped, beaten, tarred and feathered and in one instance, the man was branded with a hot iron before being tarred and feathered.

By 1794, the rebellion caused a compete break-down in all civil order and it was at that time a judge declared that a state of insurrection existed in Western Pennsylvania. Congress, at the behest of Alexander Hamilton, gave President Washington the authorization to put down the insurrection as prescribed in Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution, the same Constitution that was Ratified by the State of Pennsylvania. Washington called out the militia from four of the surrounding States and entered Western Pennsylvania, but there was no military confrontation, the rebels surrendered and accepted a complete and full amnesty from the government, not a single rebel was punished or spent time in jail for his actions. Yet, you make it seem to be so much more than it actually was...why? Jefferson, when he entered office repealed the tax.

Keep SPINNING it Joe, you seem to be good at that!

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun