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."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

No point still?

"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."

Who said there was a president under The Articles of Confederation?

I think you miss the point. So...what is the point of continuing this exchange? I won't read the rest of your response past that quote above, I see no point in it.


Republicae's picture

"Those events that became

"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."

Did you not post that Joe? You also said that Washington was a Dictator, certainly if he was then the insurrectionists of the Whiskey Rebellion would have either been made an example of or imprisoned, yet not a single one was killed, not a single one was imprisoned.

Why do you distort? When confronted you simply tuck your head between your legs and say "I won't read the rest of your response past that quote above". How typical of people of your stripe, people who would rather do a little hit and run rather than have an actual debate. You have never been clear about anything you say Joe, there is an intentional vagueness to your comments, you dodge and curve your comments. Believe me Joe, you are not the first of your kind to hit the DP with such tactics and I'm quite sure you won't be the last. We have seen your type come and go, but people like you never add anything to the conversation or debate.


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

Please stop the routine lies - please.

"Why do you distort?"

What is the point?

Your opinion is couched as a fact, and from that opinion couched as a fact you move onto the opinion you give me (which is false) as being a distortion.

What is the point of this: other than blatant character assassination?

If you refuse to admit that your words are patently false, then why go any further in producing more falsehoods?

I don't do that, so why do you do that?


"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 and the fact of the matter has nothing to do with me at all. The word choice "was never" is an absolute statement in English and it is a false absolute statement in English because people who spoke English well enough prove the fact that "the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force WAS (in fact) destroying the Sovereignty of the State just as predicted by at least Patrick Henry and George Mason and one of the first examples of that binding force was George Washington's conscripted army of invaders as that National Army invaded Pennsylvania to crush a money monopoly competitor which was any farmer daring to produce whiskey and use whiskey instead of Gold, since the funny money liars like Hamilton drove all the Gold out of the Country (except whatever was horded by the war profiteers or whatever) and that occurs by way of a thing called Gresham's Law.

Evidence of your false statement include:


"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."

I took OUT much of the CONTEXT of the words that PROVE your words to be false.

Your words:

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

That is false, and demonstrably false, and the false character of those words has nothing to do with me or my intent to expose those false words as being false words. Those are false as a self-evident fact, as if saying one plus one equals six hundred and sixty six.

Here are false words:

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

Here is the proof of those words being false:

"The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government."

Your words:

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

George Masons published words during ratification of the so called "Constitution":

"The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government."

Proof 2:

[The Convention Recorder expresses his frustration: "Mr. HENRY strongly expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America, and the horrid consequences that must result."]

Mere hearsay? Taken out of context? Whatever other lie will cover up the first one?


Here is "The President" in action:

Proof 3:


"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;"

Oh, so the Rebels won't pay their tax, well, well, well, that can't be tollerated, can it, such a fatal spirit as refusal to pay a tax on home grown money for barter is inexcusable since, well, we are trying to create a Central Bank and all, right boys!



Might makes right, of course.

What is the point of all the lies?

Please stop.

I don't want to be associated with a liar, so please stop the continued character assassination that you are currently producing, in fact, on this public access forum. It is against the rules, and it isn't nice.

If you can admit that your sentence is false, for its abuse of English, for the choice of adding the absolute wording, as if no one, ever, thought bad about "The Constitution" or in your words:

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

If that were true, which it is not, then what George Mason said was not said.


"The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government."

What the court recorded said could not have been said, were your absolute false statement true:

[The Convention Recorder expresses his frustration: "Mr. HENRY strongly expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America, and the horrid consequences that must result."]

What George Washington did, on the other hand, is not the same exact subject as your false words, so I see no point in wandering off the false words you wrote, and moving onto another subject that wanders off the false words that you wrote, when your failure to even admit that your false words are false, added to a constant barrage of falsehoods about what I write, discredits what you may or may not think about the true meaning, purpose, intent, and consequences of what George Washington did, as predicted by Patrick Henry which was:

[The Convention Recorder expresses his frustration: "Mr. HENRY strongly expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America, and the horrid consequences that must result."]

To be more precise, and less wordy:

"the President's enslaving America"

Repeating the fact:

"the President's enslaving America"

Not yet sinking in?

"the President's enslaving America"

How about now?

"the President's enslaving America"


"the President's enslaving America"

Did anyone, ever, question the fact that the Nationalists who were hiding behind the thin veil of a false Federalism as those same Nationalists set about to destroy State Sovereignty here in America?

In other words: is the following English words false?

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

Yes, Joe, as a matter of fact those words are patently false, demonstrably false, and therefore those false words aught to be known as false words, since the nature of the subject matter is abject belief in falsehood without question as those who earn anything worth stealing are sending their hard earned earning to those who consume everything in the necessary work required to keep stealing everything.

Really Joe?

Really. Case closed. Take your lies and try them on someone who wants to be lied to, take your lies to someone willing to pay a high price for your lies, because you will be called out if you continue to lie about me.

And...I saw no reason to read your entire message due to the demonstrable lies read at the beginning - again.


may I

Salute you my friend.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

You're back; lovely!

I always enjoy your writings. Seeing you here, again, makes me smile :)!

Republicae's picture

Thank you

Thank you


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

Where are the people?

Brilliant and concise. Now the remaining issue is developing a growing number of state nationals who can claim legitimate sovereignty within each state. Currently the only people inhabiting the states are people who have pledged theselves to this corporate agent and are thus it's citizens, not the states'. There are few if any who can properly claim to be the people of any of the several states, and therefore who can legitimately take control and take the federal government to task for its misbehavior. There is yet no population that can claim this lawful standing.

I believe that is a dangerous course of action to become a stateless person. This leaves one without land or the protection of law.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

According to the Articles of Confederation 1777 which by the way

is not repealed see link

Only Article IV allows for Free Inhabitant see Article IV

Article IV.
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.

There is no sovereignty by individual BY LAW. Know your Law and know your Freedom

I don't see a denial of individual sovereignty there.

This article deals with "Laws of other states to be abided" and "extradition." It is the predecessor th the allpowerful commerce clause. It defines the relationship between states but does not touch on the individual or his sovereignty except to protect certains aspects of it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you know what is ment, in context, by free inhbitants? I suspect, whatever that definition is, it does NOT apply to those who have pledged their allegiance to a foreign jurisdiction such as the United's States.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Black's Law Dictionary

will get you a lot further than Webster's, as the referenced definitions are from written law itself.

All the words to the Fundamental Organic Laws are to be found in

the Dictionary Webster or and Scholastic dictionary. Free Inhabitant is one described not a vagabond pauper or fugitive and one who lives occupies a place in which to live.

The United States is a place, a territory owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America.
The United States of America is a place not just limited to the United States but all land as well inbetween the boundaries of Canada and Mexico and including now Alaska and Hawaii. The United States of America is also most importantly a proprietary power, a confederacy of states of which now are 50 created by the Articles of Confederation 1777. All legislation that is created for the United States of America comes from the United States and this United States is a political entity where in a Free inhabitant can not exist.

Very good post.

The stickler for me in all of this... When did I consent to any of this?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Republicae's picture

What would you rather give

What would you rather give your consent to, if there were a better option than the Sovereignty of the People themselves I am not aware of such an option. Since however, today, we have never lived under such a system as described, it is difficult to even grasp the import of such a system of Sovereignty.


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

I am a practical person.

I consent to self govern, as wisely as I can muster. That means I obey pretty much all the laws, just to avoid conflict with my neighbors who support the use of force to keep me in line.
I don't have a great answer, all I can think to do is live as "free" as I can get away with.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

To govern yourself means following the

English Common law of man which means you are obligated to not harming anyone, in a nutshell. This is the law of the 50 states of the United States of America and statute law is the law of the 56 federal states (United States)

What is the difference you might ask? Read all 4 organic laws and learn them as one document and let your spirit and the Holy Spirit co mingle for the truth. Here is the link

Republicae's picture

But we shouldn't have to just

But we shouldn't have to just live as "free' as we can just get away with, we should be FREE, at LIBERTY without compulsion of any kind. The aim is not simply to get by within the super-structure of a government that no longer abides by the very acts that created it, the aim is to restore that which has been crushed, to allow people to own themselves, to be the judges of their own futures, to have a myriad of opportunity rather than being structured to a system of patronages that denies them the prosperity that is possible to them in a truly free Republic.


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


But I find myself between hopelessly hung on the horns of a dilemma... How does one lead to, or fight for, or in any way affect the liberty of others, other than by adopting a "non-aggression" principal as their guide post, and then live the example? If they do not go out and get their own, is it truly liberty?
Trust me, I have kicked and screamed and politely debated, and in the end it is the same with everything... All I can change is me.
Whatever it is in me that most resembles "faith" would be the notion that if I work hard enough on lifting my consciousness, the energy that creates will charge the imagination of those I encounter.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Republicae's picture

The apetites of men must be

The apetites of men must be whetted! When questions are asked of someone that has never heard such questions before then men, unless utterly blind, will begin to ask questions of themselves. To awaken a man from intellectual slumber is not an easy task, some will never awaken, some will awaken given time and others will awaken when a question is crafted in such a manner as to challenge everything they think they know. All we can do is set the table, we can't force them to eat.

There is however, a time for everything, or so I've seen over my life and I firmly believe that Dr. Paul came to prominence at the exact time in history that he and his message was needed and when the hunger of men was great. That message continues to grow, it is spreading because the right questions were asked, the right words said to cause men to question what they thought they knew to be true. There has never been a time in my life when so many are coming to understand the meaning behind the Cause of Liberty!

While we will most definitely face a future of difficulty in this country, I am optimistic in the Spirit of Liberty that resides, even though it be in just a remnant of men, but a remnant is all that is needed to fan those Brush Fires until the Flame of Freedom spreads without Restraint!


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

here i sit in

Amen corner. Enlightened disengagement is my weapon of choice but I adhear to the laws of the Jungle.

I want to lead no one and I want no one to lead me.

I seek not permissions nor do I accept dictators and their dictates.

The golden rule and the ten commands are my law books.



Extremely well written. Thanks, I will try to get my grandson in High School to read.

"Anarchy is when the former government employees riot in the streets." -- L. A. Rollins

"There is no justice other than what we create." -- Anonymous

"To the morally inverted, war appears as a quick, clear path to the top." -- Preston Parker

Republicae's picture

Thank you, I appreciate the

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment and I hope your Grandson, being the future of the Republic, takes it to heart and fully grasp the importance of the precepts of our Fathers.


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