Consent in Taxation - A Reserved Natural Right - Enumerated, Not Unenumerated, TaxationSubmitted by Richard Taylor APP on Tue, 06/11/2013 - 23:01
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 rights" - "Consent" 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, (and would as well with a Flat Tax or FairTax - See: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/appoppositionissues ) 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.
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:
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 the time and means to grant your "CONSENT" before it is "taken".
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!!
SEE THE ARROGATED POWER?!
SUCH "UN-ENUMERATED" "FLAT PERCENTAGE" TAXATION TAKEN CONTROL OF FIRST, WHERE CONSENT IS NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO BE OF ANY EFFECT, CAN "NEVER" BE "CONSTITUTIONAL";
AND "RATIFYING" SUCH TAXATION, CAN NEVER BE MADE TO "AMEND" THE CONSTITUTION.
NO MATTER HOW MANY STATES "RATIFY IT"!.
NO MATTER WHAT YOU NAME IT.
NOTE: The income tax was found unconstitutional twice by the Supreme Court before corruption entered and renamed a direct tax a "indirect tax" and used as an excuse to arrogate new powers expressly prohibited - It is in fact still unconstitutional and still an new arrogated power; Further, ALL taxes are DIRECT; a "INDIRECT" tax is simply a "DIRECT" tax taken from you in a different way or made to be taken from you by someone else first -
Redefining a tax as indirect is NO EXCUSE to tax you without your CONSENT or as a means to arrogate a taxing and spending power beyond the very limited DELEGATED powers.
See "Declaration of Independence" - "17th Grievance" Quote below defining Taxation without CONSENT is TYRANNY.
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:
TYRANNY DEFINED BY JOHN LOCKE'S 2ND TREATISE ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT:
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)
CANNOT "DEFINE or PRESCRIBE" the PUNISHMENT of "ANY" "OTHER" CRIME WHATEVER",
>>>>WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION"."
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:
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..."
"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;
JOHN LOCKE'S 2ND TREATISE ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT:
#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.