25 votes

Adam reponds to Oathkeepers response

I am not real sure what to think of this or why it is happening... but here it is...


Comment viewing options

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


This exchange is well worth the watch.

Adam Kokesh: A Tale of Two Revolutions
Alex Jones debates Adam Kokesh


Nice rant! I concur with Adam

Nice rant! I concur with Adam on this one I have had my fill of organizations that talk the talk but do not walk the walk.

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Usually, the people who start a movement are not

....the ones to lead it, when push comes to shove.

In fact, recently I heard Alex Jones say on air that he would not hesitate to take his family and leave this country, when the several years before that I've heard him talk, he has said that he would stand and fight. I think Alex Jones and the info wars group of people are very, very important to disseminating information to the public at large. But, I do not expect them to lead as a General would.

I believe a great deal of courage is required when the corner meets the wall. Who would you follow into battle? Answer – somebody like an Adam Kokesh. Hopefully, he has enough sense to do the necessary things to protect himself, because he is the type of person that could be needed in the future. When other military and police people see this kind of courage and conviction, it makes them think.



No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.
This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth—to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?
Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation—the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?
No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.
We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!”—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Patrick Henry – March 23, 1775


The Reason Why We have Oppression Because Good Men Do Nothing!

The Reason Why We have Oppression Because Good Men Do Nothing!

How long, how long Lord must we wait before darkness falls on the republic you created with the hard work and bravery of inspired men?

"Evil prospers because good men do nothing" ~ George Mason, Founding Father

lawyers dont have the balls

lawyers dont have the balls to do anything, even ex-consitutional lawyers

Oath keeper vs. Oath Keepers

Two phrases. One, a proper noun, is capitalized and the other phrase's first word is capitalized when it is the first word of a sentence. There is an auditory and visual distinction between these two phrases: the letter s at the end of the proper noun.

Adam starting at about 2:40 makes a good point but so does who he's arguing against, Rhodes. For distinction between the two phrases, the user of the noun in singular form or in plural form should mention his use of the noun isn't the use of the proper noun if he, the noun user, does want who's listening to him to understand what he is talking about. For a couple reasons I'm confused why Adam is upset at Rhodes:

1) syntax -- that language match what is being described. NOTE: Conflation, the discussion of two or more things as if they are the same, causes confusion. In arguments involving animation vs. nonanimation, conflation can harm the reputation of the animate thing, here Oath Keepers, a group of humans. The inanimate object is the idea, the idea being oath keeper.

2) that Adam's activity is similar to Oath Keepers' and because Adam is a member of Oath Keepers, Adam should want to distinguish between his use of oath keeper and Oath Keepers so that people listening to him understand what he is saying and to prevent damage to Oath Keeper's reputation if he, Adam, does something that sullies the noun oath keeper. Without the distinction between the noun and proper noun, Adam creates possibility that what he does about the noun affects what people would think about the proper noun.

I'm confused why Adam wouldn't make this distinction, is throwing a fit about drawing this distinction and brings in Oath Keepers' audience into this issue, especially talking about the audience as if it is dumb because of what Rhodes has done, is calling for, this distinction.

Adam, relax. Draw the distinction. Mention A is A, giving no reason to think A is A and B. No need to make a mountain out of a nothing.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.


You make some good points. I don't think you made the point that Rhodes should have checked with Kokesh about the use of oath keeper(s) instead of Oath Keepers. A reasonable person would ask for clarification before making a blanket condemnation. Rhodes: "Adam, it seems to me you are tying your demonstration to my organization." Kokesh: "No Stewart, I am using the terms oath keepers and oath breakers in the general sense because my demonstration will potentially bring to light some of the many oath breakers. What I was talking about has no other connection to your organization, and I will make that clear. Sorry for the confusion, but the connection to your organization didn't occur to me." Rhodes: "OK. That's cool."

Being an unreasonable person sometimes makes others upset.

I hope this clears up some of your confusion.

Thanks, farmer. You too made

Thanks, farmer. You too made a good point: Rhodes should ask Kokesh about his use of oath keepers. If Rhodes would keep his stance on K's use of oath keepers relative to his organization Oath Keepers, K should alter his use to show no connection between the oath keepers and Oath Keepers even if it's to be explicit about it. Good point, farmer. Thanks for it.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Adam Kokesh's view of the constitution

To quote him from the video: the constitution is a "dead document", a "failed document", a "failed experiment", and the "thing that created the government that oppresses the people of America today."

His views are off base. The constitution isn't the reason we have oppression. It has prevented the creeping oppression from advancing faster for a very long time.

Supposedly, the Daily Paul is dedicated to restoring constitutional government to the United States of America. What is the Daily Kokesh all about?

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

i would have worked

i would have worked tirelessly to stop the constitution from being adopted if I was around then. If your a big lover of the articles of confederation then what the quote you used of adams would actually be about spot on. Article 3 i think pretty much says its going to eventually oppress its people, they made it very vague for a reason

Dictatorial Falsehoods Versus


Monopoly versus Competition

So there was once a form of Government that worked as a Free Market Government Shopping Center here in America.

That was the time period between 1776 and 1788.

This is factual, and not subject to argument; unless those dictators doing the arguing are doing so to censor the actual facts, or they are just plain ignorant, misguided, and incompetent.

It was an established fact, established by those who were in the Secret Meetings in Philadelphia in 1787 when the Slave Traders were making dirty deals with the Central Bankers, behind closed doors, complete with Gag Orders, that Usurpation was the goal in the minds of those Usurpers who claimed (falsely) to be Federalists.

Don't take my word for it, if you are reading this and you are inclined to take my words for anything. Leave me out of it, personally, this has nothing to do with my subjective opinion.

A Free Market of Constitutionally Limited Republics was formed on July 4th 1776 for the purposes of mutual defense of The People against Criminal Governments, and what was formed after or during the signing of The Declaration of Independence was a working, and lasting, Independence from Criminal Governments under The Articles of Confederation NOT The One Constitution which was forced into being by known liars later on.

That Spirit of Liberty lasted until 1788 when the Usurpers took over with their Monopoly Legal Power or in the verbiage of the day those Monarchists took over with the Consolidated Government.

Out went the Free Market Government, or Voluntary Association of Separate, Competitive, Constitutionally Limited Governments, and in place was an enforced Monopoly, and it did not take long for the Central Bankers to begin crushing monetary competition.

Again, this is all very well documented factual occurrences, for anyone to find out, if they care to know better from worse.

In that, I assure you, Adam Kokesh is right on the mark, and those who claim otherwise do so out of either falsehood or ignorance.

Have a nice day.


i kinda see it, that the

i kinda see it, that the constitutions/bill of rights intent was based on liberty, the only man made thing that im aware, that is solely based on liberty, at least, the earliest example of translating liberty and writing them down so that people have a "legally" binding set of rights, comprised from our liberties.

Although i have major respect for what i view the last line of defence the constitution and bill of rights represents, i can understand where adam is coming from, the thing that we should hold most value, is not the contracts, but what they are set out to protect, our liberties

well that is just, a, opinion, admitedly, probabably a very simple one, but i find simple reasons to be more......uncomplicated :)

"sometimes, somethings are only as complicated as you make them" quoted by I.have.no.idea

"sometimes, complications hide the deeds a simple solution would uncover"quoted by same.as.above

Being specific instead of being general

Also known as fine relative to course?

"i kinda see it, that the constitutions/bill of rights intent was based on liberty, the only man made thing that im aware, that is solely based on liberty, at least, the earliest example of translating liberty and writing them down so that people have a "legally" binding set of rights, comprised from our liberties."

Those are many words.

Here are fewer words:

"constitutions/bill of rights"

One symbol is here:


Instead of ONE Constitution there were 13 Constitutions.

Those who wanted to pay more for a greater return on investment went to a Constitutionally Limited Government, such as Massachusetts, to get more by paying more, as an investment in higher quality government, at a higher price.

Those who preferred paying less, or paying the minimum, while expecting very little in return, may vote with their feet to Vermont.

What could the Federal Employees do if Massachusetts claims ownership of the Voter who Votes with their feet, as if those Massachusetts Employees, those who are hired to run Government, claim that one of their slaves ran away, and ran to Vermont?

That actually happened in the events known as Shays's Rebellion under The Articles of Confederation.

Daniel Shays's voted with his feet on into Vermont.

So the question to you, with your astute observation that it was constitutions, and not constitution, that was paired up with Bills of Rights, which were based upon Liberty, so the question is, what was the Federal Government Employee's response to the claim by Massachusetts Government Employee's claim that their Slave, this Daniel Shays, ran away, and should be returned to their owners?

What did the Federal Government do to the claim that slaves ran away from one State, voting with their Liberated feet, on into a better State in the Free Market Shopping Center of Government that existed under The Articles of Confederation?

Source 1 (of many):


From the bookshelf right here on this Forum:


Do you have the accurate answer?


sorry not sure who i replied

sorry not sure who i replied to there, but my original reply was to matts post

Forgot to add to my original post, edit:oops, sorry, to matt again

"The constitution isn't the reason we have oppression. It has prevented the creeping oppression from advancing faster for a very long time."

I agree with you on that

Classic Kokesh

Had Adam let his comments stand at around the first three and a half minutes, he might have actually gotten an apology or at least a "Cool, thanks for the clarification. Go for it!" from Rhodes and/or Hanna. Of course Kokesh wouldn't leave it at that, he's too much the juggernaut. Adam's sanity hangs by a thread. He's in my prayers...

Well Crap...

I guess it best not to release any public statement until you have communicated with the other party you have in question first. I have to agree with AK on this one and I am sorry to see that it had to get to that point for AK to cut up his OK card. AK is right about where was OK when he got arrested. Where was the public statement for OK unless I missed it?

I want to hear Adam Kokesh's and Jeffrey Phillips' plans...

We are a little more than 30 days from this march, yet I have seen no specific plans for this march or the open carry marches on 50 state capitols.

I agree with everything Adam has said about he march and the Oath Keepers. However, I also agreed with everything Richard Gilbert said about Romney; and, we all remember how THAT turned out.

I contacted Jeffrey Phillips the day Adam was released. Jeffrey got back to me right away. However, that was the last time I heard from him. We won't need the collusion of COINTEL to derail us if the marches are poorly planned.

I am not just going to tell you this. I plan to send a copy of this comment to Jeffrey to see if I can get a coherent progress report. I will tell Jeffrey I will post his response here. Then we should all be able to determine how effective these marches will be.

the plan is to march in the

the plan is to march in the legal open carry state of virginia to the bridge to D.C. They will be confronted by the police which adam will state their intent and they will either let them go or not, if the cops say no the march is over and they turn around and disperse. Pretty harmless

Guns Accross America Event Was a Success Earlier

Each State had their own.

Here is the Texas Events Page.


Main: https://www.facebook.com/events/406312512782872

Alabama: https://www.facebook.com/GunRightsAcrossAmericaAlabama

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.

I love


Ok Adam my good advise is

Never cut with anything when your angry and not paying close attention. I figured you would loose a finger there at the end.

Nice rant. Not worth your efforts. Keep focused on the wolves and dont get distracted by the sheep.


Billy Jack's picture

Something has never smelled

Something has never smelled right with Adam Kokesh. This whole episode seems to have been staged in order to give him "street cred" with the liberty movement. He is no Brandon Raub.

Cos Cob, CT

If someone is plotting to

If someone is plotting to "overthrow the government," then they are an enemy to the Constitution.

How am I wrong?

It is not just the govt

he is talking about over throwing, he is talking about the constitution itself, which in my mind is crazy talk.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Read Locke #239 Below.

If it is the government which is destroying or disobeying "the government originally agreed upon" first... Then it is a different matter;

Here John Locke Explains: #239. "...he (they) has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows, and that is the "breach of trust" in "not preserving the FORM of government AGREED ON" (ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT), and in "not intending the end of government itself, which is the public good and preservation of property"."

...Then it is the "government" that is the enemy to the Constitution.

We are a Republic (Respecting Common Law), not a democracy; This means that our government(s) are created under an "ORIGINAL COMPACT(s)" which cannot change. The compact agreed upon, only allowed change "WITHIN" the "DELEGATED" powers.

When the Federal Government began ARROGATING "NEW" POWERS, it exceeded the "authority" given it.

Read these Limitations; Here are some founders documents and will use the income tax as an example:

The INCOME TAX is not unconstitutional because it was, or was not, Ratified by enough states (as often surmised);



Changing the "LIMITED" power of "ENUMERATED" taxation which is a DELEGATED POWER,


READ WHERE THE FOUNDERS SAY THIS: Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

Read Day Convention In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

PATRICK HENRY (WARNS): "...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"! ..." "...The experience of the world teaches me the jeopardy of giving enormous power. Strike this clause out of the form of the government, and how will it stand? Congress will still have power, by the sweeping (supremacy) clause , to make laws within that {438} place and the strongholds, independently of the local authority of the state. I ask you, if this clause be struck out, whether the sweeping clause will not enable them to protect themselves from insult. If you grant them these powers, you destroy "every degree of responsibility". They will fully screen them from justice, and preclude the possibility of punishing them. No instance can be given of such a wanton grasp of power as an exclusive legislation "in all cases whatever"."

EDMUND PENDLETON: "...I understand that (Supremacy - Sweeping) clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers" (APP: i.e. THE POWER IS LIMITED TO THE DELEGATED POWERS AND THESE CAN NEVER BE CHANGED - THIS IS WHAT MAKES US A REPUBLIC UNDER A "ORIGINAL COMPACT"). 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 NICHOLAS: "...If I understand it right, NO "NEW" power can be exercised."

JAMES MADISON: "....The honorable member (PATRICK HENRY) asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, WHAT NEW TERRORS can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. 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" (SET LIMITATIONS) of their powers be "SAFE" (UNCORRUPTED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL INTENT AND FORM), no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "BUT" explanatory...."

GEORGE NICHOLAS: The gentleman last up (PATRICK HENRY) says that the power of legislation includes every thing. A general power of legislation does. But this is a "special power" of legislation. Therefore, it does "NOT contain that plenitude of power which he imagines. They (The Federal Government, Executive, Federal Legislative and Federal Supreme Court) "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY case" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED" (DELEGATED).

APP: The Ratifying and AMENDMENT PROCESSES of the Constitution were established to make changes "WITHIN" the DELEGATED powers; These processes were to limit and correct unnecessary power and only WITHIN the DELEGATED powers; These processes were NEVER MEANT to ARROGATE "NEW" POWERS upon the federal government at the will of the state or federal representatives outside of the very limited DELEGATED powers.



Mark Levin and other talk show hosts (including RAND Paul - Flat Tax) are promoting the FairTax and or Flat Tax. DO NOT BE FOOLED! Like the Income Tax, these are UNENUMERATED tax schemes. Worse yet, these tax schemes invite the federal government into your state to define "what is and what is not a business"! Using this reasoning will allow the FairTax and Flat Tax to invite and "shoehorn" the federal government right into your home and computer; This is as everything, including your person and labor, will be considered "a business"; opening everyone and everything to be scrutinized by the NEW JOINT Federal / State Hybrid form of the IRS Created by the FAIRTAX and FLAT TAX Systems. The FairTax and Flat Tax systems are BUY, SELL and TRADE TAXES. They further do not get rid of the IRS, they simply change the name to a far more dangerous bureaucracy. They simply insure that the waste in government continue; Both tax schemes are like the income tax, they use jealousy to sell you into deeper slavery.

The people that are promoting these unconstitutional tax systems are also stating they are for obeying the Constitution. This is clear deception.

Remember - RAND PAUL IS NOT RON PAUL; RON PAUL as with other true Constitutionalists understand the limitation of the Constitution and want to get rid of the IRS and Income tax and replace them with NOTHING! - - - This will change everything to the BETTER.

Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck (all promoting the same corporate message), RAND PAUL and others, want to maintain the flow of FLAT PERCENTAGE UN-ENUMERATED TAX MONEY to the federal government by simply changing the FORM of the IRS. (Even though they "preach" differently)

The FairTax and Flat "Tax Schemes" will CHANGE NOTHING and make things WORSE as it will give more invasive power to the federal government and tighter grip over your local and state laws!

You will jump from the frying pan into the FIRE!

Let these talk show hosts and representatives know that this is NOT THE WAY!





The Original Constitution was written to safeguard against such corruption and abuse of power. All taxation had to be ENUMERATED BEFORE CONSENSUALLY being collected, it was also derived from imports, collected simply from viewing the finished product; so your business affairs, income and papers were private:



Original Constitution:

Article 1 Section 9: "No Capitation, or OTHER direct, Tax shall be laid, UNLESS in "Proportion to the Census or ENUMERATION" herein BEFORE directed to be taken. "

....This allows you to grant your "CONSENT".


Amended Constitution:

Amendment XVI: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and WITHOUT REGARD to any census of ENUMERATION."

The Federal Government Takes your money FIRST in a "FLAT" PERCENT ...THEN decides what THEY are going to spend it on "AFTER" they TAKE IT. ......"WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT".


Can you SEE THE NECESSITY of ENUMERATED TAXATION!!! ...The Founders did!!






If the federal government stayed within their delegated powers, funding the necessary expenditures and paying the debt and national defense would be easy.

Force the federal government stay within the limited DELEGATED powers; Force them by not funding them to be wasteful, manipulative and tyrannical;

Stop paying for your own enslavement and destruction.

Stop allowing State born Exclusive Privileges; Get Unions, Corporations and Tax Supported Special Interests out of Government.

Remove ALL Lobbyists from Washington DC. Limit them to your states where they must confront the local citizens of the state and not manipulate our state representatives in our national government in places far distant from the citizens that are most effected by any legislation.




Learn More on our Opposition Issues Page!

Review also The Constitutional "A" Tax!

Feel Free to paste this everywhere in it's complete text.

Spread the Word! Educate Others!

American Patriot Party.CC

Visit us on Facebook with even more APP Articles and Choice Videos:

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.

Debbie's picture

Thank you very much. I don't understand the "consent" part

though. "herein before directed to be taken" refers to Article 1, Section 2, where they direct the census or enumeration to be taken every 10 years for purposes of apportionment for representation and direct taxes. There is no mention of consent.


Consent - A Reserved Natural Right

Thank you for your letter and inquiry to my post.

Consent is relative to Representation (Local as well, not just state --- i.e. "All Well Regulated Communities" see below) and decision making prior to collection. It allows citizens time to consult their representatives with regard to such spending before the money is granted to the federal government.

Consent is a "given" in enumerated taxation where taxes must be enumerated (debated and decided upon) "Before" being directed to be collected; There is no need to mention what exists (that power not given away - i.e. "reserved right" and "representation").

Consent is removed by "omission of a limitation"; which the income tax has done.

If there is no prior distinct purpose for every dollar collected; the money will, as it has been under the income tax, be spent on anything the federal government wants ..."without your personal or local representatives consent". There is the issue of most states being too large for adequate representation which compound the problem further; the original states being the size of most states counties; This "distance" establishes a factor the founders called "distant legislatures" that could not possibly be considered adequate representation as they would have no "fellow feeling" as the founders described it.

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

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 (local) "JUDICIARY" WILL declare it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID"."

Such local consent also relates to curtailing money taken by the federal government under the "Pretense of Authority". Which local communities have a duty and right to NULLIFY. Nothing in the Constitution changes this.

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1788 (10 years after the Constitution was signed)

Virginia Resolution 1798 - James Madison: "...That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "compact"; as NO further valid that they are authorized by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT COMPACT"; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said COMPACT, the STATES who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in DUTY bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the "EVIL", and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."...

...That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, "that among OTHER essential rights", "the Liberty of "CONSCIENCE" (AN INDIVIDUAL'S CONSENT) and of the Press CANNOT be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by "ANY" authority of the "United States"," and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from "EVERY possible attack" of "sophistry or ambition", having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other. That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by EACH, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, "OR" to the people. ..."

Thomas Jefferson - Kentucky Resolution 1798: "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"

8th: "......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 (Original Constitutional) COMPACT, (casus non fœderis) to "NULLIFY" of their "OWN AUTHORITY" all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this RIGHT (OF "CONSENT"), 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,

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

since that would have made "its 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..

The difference between the Original Constitution (Original Compact), and the Income Tax Amendment, is a "arrogation" of power that omits most any local consent; Bypassing the states legislature by having the money sent directly to the federal government is just one; Bypassing the limitation which the federal government cannot have departments outside - or even govern police (IRS and Federal Agents) outside the "10 miles square" of Washington DC, and cannot make "any regulation" that can "affect the citizens of the union at large", or collect taxes for any of these, is just a few more; and is why the federal legislature - which should have very little to do, is dictating just about everything we do in life, property and business. They have the ability with a unenumerated flat percentage income tax to extract billions of dollars without consent of either state or county or people.

One thing a person must look at, is that the Constitution is not a stand alone document, which the federal government now uses "as such" by "EXPOUNDING ON THE GENERAL PHRASES" and has sold many people into thinking that anything legislated becomes the "supreme law of the land"; They do not want you to know that this is the furthest thing from the truth, as land, with regard to the federal government & supremacy clause = "land" means that land within the 10 miles square (see James Madison Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 quote at bottom of this letter); The founders understood this "expounding on the General Prases" and called the federal government on this fallacy only 10 years after the Constitution was signed, putting it in words in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions:

Virginia Resolution 1788 - James Madison: "...That the General Assembly doth also express its DEEP REGRET, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to "enlarge its powers by FORCED constructions" of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a "DESIGN" to "EXPOUND" certain >>>"GENERAL "PHRASES" (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former Articles of Confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular "ENUMERATION" which NECESSARILY EXPLAINS AND LIMITS THE GENERAL PHRASES; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into ONE SOVEREIGNTY (APP: i.e. "ONE NATION" - no where intended), the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to >>>"TRANSFORM" the present "republican" system of the United States, into "an absolute", or "at best" a mixed >>>"MONARCHY".

It was never intended that the "GENERAL PHRASES", such as the supremacy clause - i.e "supreme law of the land", which was meant to LIMIT the federal government to the 10 miles square, was to be used as a means to "arrogate new powers" UNTO the federal government.

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 Edmond Pendleton: With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square 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".

James Madison Repeated How important the "PLAIN SENSE INTENTION" with regard to the "PLAIN LANGUAGE" is:

Virginia Resolution 1788 - James Madison: "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as LIMITED by the "PLAIN SENSE AND INTENTION" of the instrument constituting the "COMPACT"; as "NO FURTHER VALID" that they are "authorized" by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT" "COMPACT";..."

Consent is required. It is a Common Law requirement, which the founders clearly state, that the "common law" is still in force;

The Reserved Common Law Right of Consent (as it was never given away) is this:


JOHN LOCKE: 140: "....for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy TAXES on the people "by his OWN authority", and without such "CONSENT of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of PROPERTY", and "subverts the end of government".

>>> For "what property have I" in that which another may "by right" "take" when he pleases to himself?

JOHN LOCKE: 141. Fourthly. The legislative CANNOT transfer the power of making laws to ANY other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it CANNOT pass it over to OTHERS.
JOHN LOCKE: 149: And thus the community "PERPETUALLY" retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of "ANYBODY", even of their "LEGISLATORS", whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on "designs" against the LIBERTIES AND PROPERTIES of the subject.


CONSENT REMAINS - "Whether it is written in the Constitution or not" (see George Nicholas below) -

CONSENT is a "RESERVED COMMON LAW RIGHT" as it was never given up:

Virginia Ratifying Convention Establishing the meaning of the words in the Constitution, 6-16-1788;

George Nicholas: "....But the >>>>"COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED".

There is"NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion. As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to "make laws to define crimes and prescribe punishments"; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture.

(1.) Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted.

Congress (also) have power to define and punish:

(2.) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
(3.) offenses against the laws of nations;
(4.) (also counterfeit of coin - see Constitution - 4 all together)

BUT "THEY" (APP: the federal government, legislature or supreme court)



If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded.

A bill of rights (COMMON LAW) is only an acknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING" CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE.

They "BELONG TO US AS MUCH" as if they had been inserted in the Constitution."

(can the federal government define or prescribe income tax crimes? - no; environmental and any of the thousand crimes they now have listed as crimes? - no. These are all created and enforced under a "pretense of authority; Neither the states, nor the federal government can bestow upon the federal government these powers, as they are "arrogated" powers beyond the VERY limited "delegated" powers - See this also in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions - Kentucky Resolutions #2 - This can be no clearer, the federal government and all those officials and citizens who support or allow others to be prosecuted under any "other crimes and punishments" not listed are in DIRECT VIOLATION to the Constitution they claim to uphold.)

If there is any question as to this, it was repeated 10 years after the Constitution was Signed by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions:

Thomas Jefferson - Kentucky Resolutions 1798:

#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 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..."

"Creating and defining crimes regarding taxes" is not one of the four crimes delegated to the federal government; another feature which establishes the IRS and income tax unconstitutional.

Making a regulation that affects the citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE" is another:

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1788:

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this (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"."

Some "Major" Common Law rights eventually were included in the Constitution - this does not exclude the others; All well known to the founders at that time. One obvious right is clearly presented by the writings of John Locke - Second Treaties of Civil Government is the Requirement of Consent;


#135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth, yet, first, it is not, nor can possibly be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person or assembly which is legislator, it can be no more than those persons had in a state of Nature before they entered into society, and gave it up to the community. For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having, in the state of Nature, no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of Nature gave him for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, this is all he doth, or can give up to the commonwealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of the society.10 It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects; the obligations of the Law of Nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have, by human laws, known penalties annexed to them to enforce their observation. Thus the Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for, other men's actions must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of Nature -- i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of Nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it.

136. Secondly, the legislative or supreme authority cannot assume to itself a power to rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense justice and decide the rights of the subject by promulgated standing laws, 11 (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) and known authorised judges. For the law of Nature being unwritten, and so nowhere to be found but in the minds of men, they who, through passion or interest, shall miscite or misapply it, cannot so easily be convinced of their mistake where there is no established judge; and so it serves not as it aught, to determine the rights and fence the properties of those that live under it, especially where every one is judge, interpreter, and executioner of it too, and that in his own case; and he that has right on his side, having ordinarily but his own single strength, hath not force enough to defend himself from injuries or punish delinquents. To avoid these inconveniencies which disorder men's properties in the state of Nature, men unite into societies that they may have the united strength of the whole society to secure and defend their properties, and may have standing rules to bound it by which every one may know what is his. To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.

137. Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of Nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases; he being in a much worse condition that is exposed to the arbitrary power of one man who has the command of a hundred thousand than he that is exposed to the arbitrary power of a hundred thousand single men, nobody being secure, that his will who has such a command is better than that of other men, though his force be a hundred thousand times stronger. And, therefore, whatever form the commonwealth is under, the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions, for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of Nature if they shall have armed one or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force them to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment, unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions. For all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law, and the rulers, too, kept within their due bounds, and not be tempted by the power they have in their hands to employ it to purposes, and by such measures as they would not have known, and own not willingly.

138. Thirdly, the "supreme power" (i.e. LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE) cannot take from any man any part of his property without his "OWN CONSENT". (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their "OWN CONSENT"; without this they have no property at all. For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. This is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists wholly or in part in assemblies which are variable, whose members upon the dissolution of the assembly are subjects under the common laws of their country, equally with the rest. But in governments where the legislative is in one lasting assembly, always in being, or in one man as in absolute monarchies, there is danger still, that they will think themselves to have a distinct interest from the rest of the community, and so will be apt to increase their own riches and power by taking what they think fit from the people. For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from any private man what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good.

139. But government, into whosesoever hands it is put, being as I have before shown, entrusted with this condition, and for this end, that men might have and secure their properties, the prince or senate, however it may have power to make laws for the regulating of property between the subjects one amongst another, yet can never have a power to take to themselves the whole, or any part of the subjects' property, without their "OWN CONSENT"; for this would be in effect to leave them "no property at all". And to let us see that even absolute power, where it is necessary, is not arbitrary by being absolute, but is still limited by that reason and confined to those ends which required it in some cases to be absolute, we need look no farther than the common practice of martial discipline. For the preservation of the army, and in it of the whole commonwealth, requires an absolute obedience to the command of every superior officer, and it is justly death to disobey or dispute the most dangerous or unreasonable of them; but yet we see that neither the sergeant that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money; nor the general that can condemn him to death for deserting his post, or not obeying the most desperate orders, cannot yet with all his absolute power of life and death dispose of one farthing of that soldier's estate, or seize one jot of his goods; whom yet he can command anything, and hang for the least disobedience. Because such a blind obedience is necessary to that end for which the commander has his power -- viz., the preservation of the rest, but the disposing of his goods has "nothing to do with it".

140. It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent -- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such (LOCAL) "CONSENT of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of property", and "subverts the end of government". For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself?"

A Collecting Taxes without first having local Consent given prior to (BEFORE) being directed to be collected can never be considered Consent; Nor can "Distant Legislatures" (non local) provide the representation necessary to claim it has the "Consent" of the people it takes from. See also "Republics and Representation".

This understanding is presented in this same day Convention by John Marshall and James Madison:

Virgina Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 - Mr. JOHN MARSHALL "asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to "interfere" with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken.

The state governments DID NOT derive their powers from the general (FEDERAL) government; but "EACH" government derived its powers "from the people", and "EACH" was to act "according" to the powers "given" it. Would any gentleman deny this? ..."

(i.e. he is presenting that this is "common knowledge" to all the founders and all the people)

The federal government was never granted the power to act without Consent of the people, or to exceed the VERY limited "delegated" powers; or to ignore Common Law. That which is not given is Retained by the people.

The Reference to consent has to be placed in consideration that the Constitution is operating as it was intended.

Virgina Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 - James Madison: "...He says that one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution, was, that a standing army was quartered upon us. This was not the whole complaint. We complained because it was done without the "LOCAL Authority" of this country without the (local) CONSENT of the people of America. As to the exclusion of standing armies in the bill of rights of the states, we shall find that though, in one or two of them, there is something like a prohibition, yet, in most of them, it is only provided that no armies shall be kept without the legislative authority; that is, without the CONSENT of the (local) community itself."


Consent is lost when the delegation (limits) of powers is lost;

Consent is regained when the delegation (limits) of powers is reestablished.

Reference to Article 1, Section 2 is actually irrelevant to the reserved power (in all cases) of local consent and local representation and the "limited delegated power of enumeration" "before" being collected which allows representation, debate and consent to occur FIRST;

All of which is removed by money (property) being taken in undetermined amounts, without local consent, and decided by a "distant legislature" of representatives after it is collected, which is really not representation to what citizens want at all, but what the distant legislators want; Further, which is why the federal government and our representatives are wasting huge amounts of money and being corrupted and bribed by mandates in an attempt to get the money back into their own states that has been taken without our consent...and then only to be spent on federally mandated, mostly union or special interest supported programs and bureaucracies that are equally outside the limited delegated powers.


American Patriot Party.CC

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

JAMES MADISON: (Author of the Constitution) "Mr. Chairman: ...I cannot comprehend that the (federal government's legislative's, Executive's, Judicial Supreme Court's and Departments) "power of LEGISLATING" over a "SMALL DISTRICT" (Washington , DC), which >>>"CANNOT EXCEED" >>>TEN MILES SQUARE, and may >>>"NOT BE" more than "ONE" MILE, will involve the dangers which he (Patrick Henry) apprehends. ..."

That should clarify much of the arrogation of power and expounding on "general phrases" that has changed the "supremacy (sweeping) clause", which was a "special power" limiting the definition of "supreme law of the land" initially describing the "10 miles square limit" of the word "land"; into a "sweeping power" no where intended, that subjected all the states to unlimited undelegated federal powers over the states and people.

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.

You are wrong if

The government is not the constitution. If you define the constitution as the government that you would be correct; However many would argue that the constitution is a set of rules to protect the public from the government. They would go further to say that when the government is in great violation of its charter, the constitution it is the public duty to overthrow the government to protect the constitution.

So tell me do you think the Government is operating within the contsitution or not?


But you ignore the fact that

Adam has stated that the constitution is a "dead document", a "failed document", a "failed experiment", and the "thing that created the government that oppresses the people of America today." So in other-words he wants to over throw the constitution.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James