4 votes

Dangerous Exclusive Privileges Against The Constitution.

Dangerous Exclusive Privileges Against The Constitution.

Video: Glenn Greenwald Yale Law School Speech direct link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRiQ0SGJ_98&feature=youtu.be

Glenn Greenwald - Solidifies as Warned over 200 Years ago; The Federal Government has since granted itself immunity to prosecution of the Laws. A clear act of Tyranny and Usurpation.

Please review also these Founders words that address the issues of a out of control federal government who grant Exclusive Privileges and advantages to themselves and others:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
... In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

George Mason: "...Now, sir, if an attempt should be made to establish tyranny over the people, here are ten miles square where the greatest offender may meet protection. If any of their officers, or creatures, should attempt to oppress the people, or should actually perpetrate the blackest deed, he has nothing to do but get into the ten miles square. Why was this dangerous power given? Felons may receive an asylum there and in {432} their strongholds.

Gentlemen have said that it was dangerous to argue against possible abuse, because there could be no power delegated but might be abused. It is an incontrovertible axiom, that, when the dangers that may arise from the abuse are greater than the benefits that may result from the use, >>>the power ought to be withheld. I do not conceive that this power is at all necessary, though capable of being greatly abused...."

James Madison: "...Mr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary to say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me ask whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers.

I cannot comprehend that the "power of legislating" over a "SMALL DISTICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED" "TEN MILES SQUARE", and "MAY NOT BE" "MORE THAN ONE MILE" (APP...There's the real problem right here!), will involve the dangers which he (Patrick Henry) apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the LAST THING that would enter into the mind of ANY MAN to grant exclusive advantages, in a VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT, to the prejudice of the community at large. .... "

".... The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend ANY danger, they may "REFUSE it ALTOGETHER"."

Mr. GRAYSON. "Mr. Chairman, one answer which has been given is, the improbability of the evil that it will never be attempted, and that it is "ALMOST" impossible. This will not satisfy us, when we consider the great attachments men have to a great and "magnificent capital". It would be the interest of the citizens of that district to aggrandize themselves by every possible means in their power, to the great injury of the other states. ... It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government; but they never had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases."

"It is answered that the CONSENT of the "state" MUST be required, or else they cannot have such a district, or places for the erecting of forts..."

"...But it may be observed that those extensive countries will be formed into independent states, and that their CONSENT will be NECESSARY. To this I answer, that they may still grant such "privileges" as, in that country, are already granted to Congress by the states. The grants of Virginia, South Carolina, and other states, will be subservient to Congress in this respect. Of course, it results from the whole, that requiring the consent of the states will be "NO GUARD" against this "ABUSE of POWER".

Mr. NICHOLAS insisted that as the state, within which the ten miles square might be, could prescribe the terms on which Congress should hold it, no danger could arise, as no state would CONSENT to injure itself;

(APP: But we have found that corrupted state legislatures and governors as well as federal state representatives HAVE CONSENTED to injure the people of their state by accepting a unenumerated tax system and then accepting Federal Bribes through mandates to get the money back only to be controlled by state Unions)

there was the same {435} security with respect to the places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, &c.; and as to the territory of the United States, the power of Congress only extended to make needful rules and regulations concerning "it", without prejudicing the claim of any particular state, the right of territory not being given up; that the grant of those lands to the United States was for the general benefit of all the states, and >NOT BE PERVERTED TO THEIR PREJUDICE>

Mr. GRAYSON, on the other hand, contended that the ten miles square could not be viewed as a state; that the state within which it might be would have no power of legislating over it; that, consequently, persons bound to labor, and felons, might receive protection there; that "exclusive emoluments" might he granted to those residing within it; that the territory of the United States, being a part of no state or states, might be appropriated to what use Congress pleased, without the consent of any state or states; and that, consequently, such exclusive privileges and exemptions might be granted, and such protection afforded to fugitives, within such places, as Congress should think proper; that, after mature consideration, he could not find that the ten miles square was to be looked upon even as a part of a state, but to be totally independent of all, and subject to the exclusive legislation of Congress.

Mr. LEE strongly expatiated on the impossibility of securing any human institution from possible abuse. He thought the powers conceded in the paper on the table not so liable to be abused as the powers of the state governments.

Gentlemen had suggested that the seat of government would become a sanctuary for state villains, and that, in a short time, ten miles square would subjugate a country of eight hundred miles square.

This appeared to him a most improbable possibility; nay, he might call it impossibility. Were the place crowded with rogues, he asked if it would be an agreeable place of residence for, the members of the general government, who were freely chosen by the people and the state governments.

Would the people be so lost to honor and virtue, as to select men who would willingly {436} associate with the most abandoned characters? He thought the honorable gentleman's objections against remote possibility of abuse went to prove that government of no sort was eligible, but that a state of nature was preferable to a state of civilization. He apprehended no danger; and thought that persons bound to labor, and felons, could not take refuge in the ten miles square, or other places exclusively governed by Congress, because it would be contrary to the Constitution, and a PALPABLE USURPATION, to protect them.

(APP: READ THAT AGAIN!)

Patrick Henry: "...Will not the members of Congress have the same passions which "other rulers" have had? They will not be superior to the frailties of human nature. However cautious you may be in the selection of your representatives, it will be "dangerous to trust them with such unbounded powers". Shall we be told, when about to grant such illimitable authority, that it will "never be exercised"!

I conjure you once more to remember the admonition of that sage man who told you that,when you give power, YOU KNOW NOT WHAT YOU GIVE. I know the absolute necessity of an energetic government. But is it consistent with any principle of prudence or good policy to grant unlimited, unbounded authority, which is so totally unnecessary that gentlemen say it will "never be exercised"? But gentlemen say that we must make experiments.

A wonderful and unheard-of experiment it will be, to give "unlimited power unnecessarily"! I admit my inferiority in point of historical knowledge; but I believe no man can produce an instance of an unnecessary and unlimited power, given to a body independent of the legislature, within a particular district. Let any man in this Convention show me an instance of such separate and different powers of legislation in the same country show me an instance where a part of the community was independent of the whole.

The people within that place, and the strongholds, may be "excused from all the burdens imposed on the rest of the society", and may "enjoy exclusive emoluments", to the great injury of the rest of the people. But gentlemen say that the power will not he abused. They ought to "show that it is necessary"..."

James Madison:

If that "LATITUDE" of "CONSTRUCTION" which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause", there "would" be room for those HORRORS.

But it gives NO SUPPLEMENTARY POWER. It ONLY enables them to execute the "DELEGATED POWERS".

"If" the "DELEGATION" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause.

It is at most "BUT" explanatory. For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves AUTHORITY to make laws to execute it...."

(AUTHORITY comes not from congress, nor executive, nor from the federal supreme court, but from the ORIGINAL COMPACT i.e. the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION - The Delegated powers limited the federal government)

"...When the honorable member objects to giving the general government jurisdiction over the place of their session, does he mean that it should be under the control of any particular state, that might, at a critical moment, seize it? I should have thought that this clause would have met with the most cordial approbation. As the consent of the state in which it may be must be obtained, and as it may stipulate the terms of the grant, should they "violate the particular stipulations" it would be an "usurpation"; so that, if the members of Congress were to be guided by the laws of their country, none of those dangers could arise."

Patrick Henry: replied (A WARNING) that, "if Congress were vested with supreme power of legislation, paramount to the constitution and laws of the states, the dangers he had described might happen; for that Congress would not be confined to the enumerated powers. This construction was warranted, in his opinion, by the addition of the word DEPARTMENT, at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of any DEPARTMENT or officer of the government."

Mr. PENDLETON. (ANSWERED showing that the supremacy clause of the federal government is limited to the 10 miles square) Mr. Chairman, this (sweeping / supremacy) clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)or to make ANY REGULATION that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union AT LARGE. But it gives them power over the LOCAL police of the PLACE, so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause".

It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within "THAT" district (Washington DC - 10 Miles Square). What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to?Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?

I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall BE. What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate "THERE", in order to preserve {440} serve the police of THE PLACE and their OWN personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the "fair construction". Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters. (APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have no operation without the limits of that district. Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO EFFECT the moment it would go WITHOUT THAT PLACE; for their exclusive power is confined to that district. Were they to pass such a law,it would be nugatory (NULL - VOID); and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district. This exclusive power is "LIMITED TO THAT PLACE SOLELY", for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary."..."

"...With respect to the necessity of the TEN MILES SQUARE (Washington, DC - Federal government) being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers VESTED by "THIS" Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,

I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",

but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them, (N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers".

George Mason: " Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained? Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and "suppose" that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws.

Now, suppose oppressions {442}should arise under "this" government,and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers;could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the "general welfare", and under their "OWN" "CONSTRUCTION", say that this was destroying the "general PEACE", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people?

And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square,when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not "extend" their implication?

It appears to me that they MAY and "WILL". And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare(APP Note: Defense against "Foreign" aggression) of the Union, I grant.

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to ALL powers which are NOT granted, that they are retained by the states.

Otherwise, the power of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE" may be "PERVERTED TO ITS DESTRUCTION"."

George Nicholas: "...He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in ALL WELL-REGULATED COMMUNITIES, determines the "EXTENT" of "legislative" powers.

If they exceed these powers,the "JUDICIARY" "WILL" "DECLARE" it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to "DECLARE" it "VOID".

Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence. The power of providing for the general defence ONLY extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts, But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives. This was "misrepresented".

If I understand it right, "NO" "NEW" power can be exercised.

As to those which are actually granted, we trust to the fellow-feelings of our representatives;and if we are deceived, we then "trust to altering our {444} government"."

--------------------

Now lets see 10 years later when the federal government did step outside the delegated powers:

--------------------
--------------------

Link for the Virginia (half a page) and Kentucky Resolution 1798 in Full can be found here: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
(In full right here below - only 1 page long and important to this lesson)

Thomas Jefferson:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for "special purposes" — "delegated" to that government "certain definite" powers, RESERVING, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their OWN self-government;

and that WHENSOEVER the general government assumes UNDELEGATED powers, its acts are "UNAUTHORITATIVE", "VOID", and of "NO FORCE": that to this compact "each State" acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this COMPACT was "NOT" made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself

(APP: i.e. The Federal Supreme Court, Executive or Legislative are not the final judge);

since that would have made "IT'S (The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S" DISCRETION, and "NOT the CONSTITUTION", the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an EQUAL right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress..

2. " Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish:

a.) treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and
d.) offenses against the law of nations,

and >>>> NO OTHER CRIMES >>>"WHATSOEVER";

and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"

therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (>>>> and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so "ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,) >>> are "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";

and that the power to create, define, and punish such OTHER CRIMES is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its own territory

3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and that NO power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed.

And thus also they guarded against ALL abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from "ALL" human restraint or interference.

And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press": thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion,

are WITHHELD from the cognizance of federal tribunals.

That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is "NOT LAW", but is "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE".

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared,

that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE".

5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808" that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, "CONTRARY" to the said provision of the Constitution, and "VOID"

6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled "An Act concerning aliens" is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that "no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law"; and that another having provided that "in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense;"

the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion,

without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without hearing witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel,

is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore NOT LAW, but utterly VOID, and of NO FORCE: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens,

is AGAINST the article of the Constitution which provides that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior"; and that the said act is VOID for that reason ALSO. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers.

7. Resolved, That the "construction" applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by "sundry" of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers VESTED by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution:

that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought "NOT TO BE SO CONSTRUED" as themselves to give "UNLIMITED POWERS", NOR a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquility, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for "IMMEDIATE REDRESS".

8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the "plain intent and meaning" in which it "was" understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that COMPACT, is NOT for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in NO MAN, or BODY OF MEN ON EARTH: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy;

BUT, where powers are assumed which have NOT BEEN DELEGATED, a "NULLIFICATION" of the act is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY: that every STATE has a natural RIGHT in cases NOT within the COMPACT, (casus non fœderis) to "NULLIFY" of their "OWN AUTHORITY" all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them:

that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the COMPACT, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it,

Congress being NOT a party, but "MERELY the CREATURE of THE COMPACT", and SUBJECT as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of THOSE by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated OR NOT enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction:

that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, REDUCED AS OUTLAWS, to the absolute dominion of ONE MAN, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all,

no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal;

that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a FIRST EXPERIMENT; but the CITIZEN WILL SOON FOLLOW, or rather, has ALREADY FOLLOWED, for already has a sedition act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, "NECESSARILY" drive these States into "REVOLUTION and BLOOD" and will furnish "new calumnies" against "REPUBLICAN" government, and new pretexts for THOSE who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that CONFIDENCE is everywhere the parent of DESPOTISM — free government is founded in JEALOUSY, and NOT in CONFIDENCE; it is JEALOUSY and not confidence which prescribes LIMITED constitutions, to BIND DOWN those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the LIMITS to which, and >>>NO FURTHER, our confidence may go;

and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing LIMITS to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a TYRANNY, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but BIND him down from mischief by the CHAINS of the Constitution.

That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own.

That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, NOT WITH THEIR CONSENT, but by others AGAINST their consent:

that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its (Federal Government's) OWN will, and not from OUR AUTHORITY; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts VOID, and of NO FORCE, and will EACH take measures of its OWN for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not "PLAINLY and INTENTIONALLY" authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their RESPECTIVE territories.

9th. Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly."

--------------

So closely does the recent events repeat the dangers Warned of the Founders.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/

American Patriot Party Now on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nati...

Glenn Greenwald Yale Speech direct link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRiQ0SGJ_98&feature=youtu.be



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Bump for knowledge!! Not

Bump for knowledge!! Not enough time to read this at work, but darn it's good reading.

Bump.

Bump.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.