23 votes

Rand Paul on Hannity Radio this afternoon: Who Cares if Obamacare is the law of the land?

I thought this was a good interview.


http://youtu.be/8hY9ODoyL0U



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Bump.

Bump.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

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

Wow - Rand looks a lot like Luke Wilson in that pic.>

Am I right?

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

hmmm...

I'm "Not Sure".

With liberty and justice for all...who can afford it.

Founders: Nullify! NoCompromise on UnConstitutional Law-LESSON!

LESSON!

Do Not Be Taken In. Read This:

First, Hannity is an IDIOT. and Rand simply isn't saying what he should.

Law is not Law just because it is passed by the federal legislative; Nor is the Federal Law superior to the Limits Set Upon it By the Constitution.

And a law outside the limits set by the founders does not make it the "Law of the Land"; This just shows Hannity's total ignorance or willing corruption; The term "Land" often meant WITHIN THE TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC When relating to federal powers under the supremacy (SWEEPING) Clause.

It is the Laws of the Constitution that is the Supreme; Not "ANY" Laws made by the federal legislators. A little long but read it; Copy and paste to read later, if you do not have time right now:

----

Kentucky Resolution 1798:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

Thomas Jefferson:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a "COMPACT" under the "style and title of a Constitution" for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general (FEDERAL) government for "SPECIAL PURPOSES" — "delegated" to that (Federal) government "CERTAIN DEFINATE POWERS, RESERVING, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their OWN self-government;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that the power to CREATE, DEFINE, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its own territory...."

----

So there Jefferson states that the federal government "CANNOT DEFINE OR PROSECUTE" "non-compliance" to Obamacare. End of story.

(Anyone who does, will be "CRIMINAL" "DEGENERATE". Who says so? James Madison... Keep reading)

Now let us see if the federal government can pass a "regulation" that can "AFFECT THE INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF ALL THE STATES OF THE UNION" ...No The federal legislature CANNOT...

----

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

----

Mr. PENDLETON. "Mr. Chairman, this (SUPREMACY - SWEEPING) clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY PART" of the Constitution, (N)or to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN) "MAY AFFECT" the interests of the citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE".

----

Obamacare is a "REGULATION" that WILL "AFFECT" the interests of the Citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE".

It therefore is unconstitutional and can never be made constitutional because it is an ARROGATED NEW POWER, outside of the DELEGATED POWERS;

It is clear by the founders that the federal government cannot by ANY MEANS, DEPART from the DELEGATED POWERS:

----

Mr. Pendleton: (Continued) "...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". ..."

----

Ratifying and Amendments are for making changes "WITHIN" the DELEGATED powers; They were never meant to ARROGATE NEW POWERS OUTSIDE OF THE DELEGATED POWERS.

This is what Rand Paul should be arguing; Not Compromise.

Rand Should be saying, that it is a VOID federal power and it will be NULLIFIED.

If we keep "compromising" on the Constitution, there won't be anything left.

The "Welfare Clause" was meant as a means to finance National Defense, and the National Debt from National Defense.

NOTHING ELSE. Not Social Security. Not Welfare. Not grants. Not environmental regulations and associated bureaucracies.

NOTHING ELSE:

----

(Same Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788)

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE", supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses.

He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and provide for the COMMON DEFENCE (ONLY); >that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the GENERAL POWER OF LEGISLATION", but to the "PARTICULAR POWER" of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the "PURPOSE" of paying the "DEBTS" and providing for the "COMMON DEFENSE",

that is, that they could raise (ONLY) "AS MUCH MONEY" (ONLY) as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE",

in "CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER".

The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause (Supremacy) contained"NO new grant of power". To illustrate this position, he observed that,

if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

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 (County, states), determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers.

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

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

This was misrepresented.

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

----

Virginia Resolution of 1798:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

James Madison:

"RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support "the government" of the United States in all measures "warranted" by "the former".

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 (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S) RESPECTIVE LIMITS, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to "THEM".

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"...."

"...That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that "AMOUNG OTHER ESSENTIAL RIGHTS", "the Liberty of Conscience (AS NOT WANTING TO PARTICIPATE IN OBAMA CARE) and of the Press CANNOT be cancelled, abridged, RESTRAINED, or MODIFIED by "ANY" AUTHORITY of the "United States" (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT),"

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 (RIGHTS)...."

---

Hannity can't understand (or willingly ignores) that the Supremacy Clause was very limited, and in most cases with regard to the powers of the Federal Government, the word "LAND" in the "Supremacy (SWEEPING) Clause" was LIMITED to The "TEN MILES SQUARE" of WASHINGTON, DC.

Most likely because his constituents, large Corporations, Unions etc; WANT YOU TO BELIEVE, that anything the federal legislative passes is the "Law of (ALL) the Land --- of all the states"; This is so that the "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" "NATIONAL" laws their lobbyist impose upon the people will be unquestioned.

Do Not Believe it; It is false.

Patrick Henry brought this question up with a warning:

---

Same Virginia Ratifying Convention:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Mr. HENRY "...replied that, if Congress were vested with "SUPREME POWER OF LEGISLATION", "PARAMOUNT TO THE CONSTITUTION" and laws of the states, the dangers he had described MIGHT HAPPEN;

for that Congress would not be CONFINED to the ENUMERATED (DELEGATED) POWERS. This construction was warranted, in his opinion, by the addition of the word "DEPARTMENT", at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of ANY "DEPARTMENT" or officer of the government.

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

(HERE IS THE DEFINITION>>>) But it gives them power over the LOCAL POLICE OF THE PLACE (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC), so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair "CONSTRUCTION" of the clause".

It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within "THAT DISTRICT" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC).

What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to?

Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?

I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall be.

What, then, is the power?

It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate "THERE" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC), in order to preserve {440} serve the police of the "PLACE" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC) and their OWN personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the "fair CONSTRUCTION".

Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world?

Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters.(APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" to citizens residing within that place (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC); the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says.

It could have "NO OPERATION" without (OUTSIDE) the LIMITS of THAT DISTRICT (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC). Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO effect the moment it would go without that place (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC); for their exclusive power is confined to that district (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC).

Were they to pass "such a law",it would be NUGATORY (!!!!!); and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.

This exclusive (SUPREME) power is LIMITED (!!!) TO THAT PLACE SOLEY (!!!), for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary. ..."

---

See the limitation?!

---

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

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

On Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

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.

Constitution and laws

I agree with you on Hannity. Unforunately, ALL laws are just threats of force. The constitution is just a scribble on a piece of paper, written up by some power ellites.

The constitution says it is morally right and legal to rob people:
http://youtu.be/ngpsJKQR_ZE
http://youtu.be/ngpsJKQR_ZE

Democracy is just mob rule... voting is trying to control your neighbor using force, even if he has done nothing to you.

The Video Misses a few Major Points. LESSON.

The Constitution was written with the principles of Representation under "Original Compacts" i.e. Free Republics based upon Common Law i.e. the "Law of Nature";

Which if misused, in part as it is today, accomplishes what the video presents;

However, the Constitution is NOT a stand alone document; And the "AUTHORIZED" AUTHORITY of the Constitution; or more importantly that power granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government, is NOT unlimited as he suggests.

The Constitution is a "LIMITED REPUBLIC COMPACT", it is NOT a DEMOCRACY.

The Person in this video seems not to understand some of the basic principles of Common Law, the "state of nature" as opposed to that of man in society, under government which end and purpose is to PROTECT PROPERTY, not take it.

The person making this video also has "over simplified and erred" in numerous areas as to the "ORIGINAL COMPACT" i.e US Constitution, and further has made the same mistake as the federal government had done (and is doing again today) to "gain" new power "without authority" in imposing the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790's;

Thereby the person in this video is "PERPETUATING a FALLACY" in regard to the CONSTITUTION.

In the words of James Madison when Nullifying the "Alien and Sedition ACTS" in the Virginia Resolutions 1798 stated , He has "EXPOUNDED ON THE "GENERAL PHRASES" ...so as to DESTROY THE MEANING AND EFFECT, of the particular "ENUMERATION" which NECESSARILY EXPLAINS AND LIMITS THE GENERAL PHRASES". (Read in Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates)

The Ratifying Conventions (a)"defined the limits" of the taxation as to what it could collect taxes for; the (b) limits of "Departments" - and equally important the LIMITED "AREA" within the states the federal government was to occupy and only of which those departments could exist:

----

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

a.) George Nicholas: "that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the GENERAL POWER OF LEGISLATION", but to the >PARTICULAR power> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the "PURPOSE" of paying the "DEBTS" (ONLY) and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE" (ONLY), that is, that they could raise (ONLY) as much money (ONLY) as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", in "CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER"…"

b.) James Madison: "…I cannot comprehend that the "POWER OF LEGISLATING" over a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED" "TEN MILES SQUARE", and "MAY NOT BE MORE" than "ONE MILE", will involve the dangers which he (PATRICK HENRY) apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the LAST THING that would enter into the mind of ANY MAN to grant exclusive advantages, in a "VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT", to the prejudice of the community at large."…"

----

If these LIMITS (and other limits) were followed, there would not be the need for invasive taxation; and the BURDEN of taxation; Which PURPOSE is to PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY would not distorted into a means to take your property.

First let's look at what government and taxation is for.

John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

Chapter 11: Of the Extent of the Legislative Power

134. THE great end (PURPOSE) of men's "entering into society" being the "ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTIES IN PEACE AND SAFETY", and the "great instrument" and MEANS of that "BEING THE LAWS ESTABLISHED" in that society,

the "first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths" is the "establishing of the legislative" power, as the FIRST AND FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL LAW which is to govern EVEN THE LEGISLATIVE. Itself is the PRESERVATION OF THE SOCIETY and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but "SACRED AND UNALTERABLE" in the hands where "the community have ONCE PLACED IT"

(i.e. THE "ORIGINAL COMPACT" OF THE REPUBLIC - THIS IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHES THE LIMITS OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE "TRUST" GIVEN TO IT BY THE PEOPLE WHO FORMED IT TO MAINTAIN THE SOCIETY AS IT WAS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDERS OF THAT SOCIETY).

Nor can any edict of anybody else, in what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the "force AND OBLIGATION of a law" which has "not its sanction from that legislative" which the public has chosen and appointed; for without this the law could not have that which is absolutely necessary to its being a law, the CONSENT OF THE SOCIETY, over whom nobody can have a power to make laws9 but by their own CONSENT and by authority received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts.

Nor can any oaths to any foreign power whatsoever (UN OR NATIONAL TREATYS), or any domestic subordinate power, discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative, acting "PURSUANT OF THEIR TRUST", NOR oblige him to any obedience CONTRARY to the laws so enacted OR FARTHER than they do allow, it being ridiculous to imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society which is not the supreme.

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 THE 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" (LEGISLATIVE) "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)

mand 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 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 (PURPOSE) of government, and that (REASON) 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. …"

"….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" (PURPOSE), that men might have and SECURE IN 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, …"

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 "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?

----

Now to understand, the United States is NOT "ONE NATION" but a LIMITED COMPACT Which is directed by the states, each whom has a separate constitution.

The insufficiency presently regarding the states is in their size, which most are too large to provide adequate representation;

More on this subject here: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

And where the Person in the video attempts to negate the authority of a social compact, he would also at the same time negate the protections he enjoys from it. And would most likely equally complain if without the protection he enjoys regarding the "FREEDOM OF SPEECH", being jailed or killed without it.

The Constitution is not broke, it is simply being MISUSED;

And that MISUSE comes from people who are ignorant to the Laws and the Reason Behind them for which they were established.

Taking of property is not justified but for "temporary use" and "ONLY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE" (based upon housing soldiers in the time of war) by which one is to be compensated, and the term is another of those that both state and federal government has "EXPOUNDED UPON" to give them powers NO WHERE INTENDED.

Locke 139; "…..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 (PROPERTY) has "NOTHING TO DO WITH IT"."

----

Absolute Rights of the Colonists, 1772:
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

Samuel Adams: "…All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.--

When Men enter into Society, it is by VOLUNTARY CONSENT; and they have a "RIGHT TO DEMAND" and insist upon the performance of SUCH CONDITIONS, And previous limitations as form an equitable "ORIGINAL COMPACT".--

Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social "COMPACT" necessarily ceded remains.--

All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity.-- (i.e. THE LAW OF NATURE - COMMON LAW)

"…In the state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable natural right to an honourable support from the same principle "that the labourer is worthy of his hire"

but then the "same community" which they SERVE (NOT DICTATED BY UNIONS IN WASHINGTON , DC), ought to be assessors of their pay:

Governors have no right to seek what they please (WHICH UNIONS DO); by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable SERVANTS of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants.

Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--

In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those very rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life liberty and PROPERTY"….

3d. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects

A Common Wealth or state is a body politick or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity, by means of their union.5

The absolute Rights of Englishmen, and all freemen in or out of Civil society, are principally, personal security personal liberty and private property.

All Persons born in the British American Colonies are by the laws of God and nature, and by the Common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well Entitled, and by the Acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled to all the natural essential, inherent & inseperable Rights Liberties and Privileges of Subjects born in Great Britain, or within the Realm. Among those Rights are the following; which no men or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves give up, or take away from others ….

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person or by his Representative.--

These are some of the FIRST PRINCIPLES of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of ALL FREE STATES, and of the British Constitution in particular.

It is utterly irreconcileable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the COMMON LAW, common sense and REASON, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists. ..."

----

Again From the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

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

Congress have power to define and punish:

b.)  piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
c.) offenses against the laws of nations;

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".

(That INCLUDES THE INCOME TAX CRIMES and ANY UNENUMERATED TAX as that is an ARROGATED NEW POWER)

(APP Note: 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 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 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. (APP Note: Which they eventually were) But it is said that, if it be doubtful, the possibility of dispute ought to be precluded. Admitting it was proper for the Convention to have inserted a bill of rights, it is not proper here to propose it as the condition of our accession to the Union. Would you reject this government for its omission, dissolve the Union, and bring miseries on yourselves and posterity? I hope the gentleman does not oppose it on this ground solely. Is there another reason? He said that it is not only the general wish of this state, but all the states, to have a bill of rights. If it be so, where is the difficulty of having this done by way of subsequent amendment? We shall find the other states willing to accord with their own favorite wish.

The gentleman last up 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 legislature) "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY CASE" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED"."

----

With regard to taxation:

Unenumerated Taxation is not a Delegated Power of the "ORIGINAL COMPACT";

Only Enumerated Taxation is;

Therefor NEITHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOR THE STATES can RATIFY OR AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW FOR UNENUMERATED TAXATION (DIRECT OR INDIRECT); AS THIS IS A NEW AND ARROGATED POWER. And as established by the founders in the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 6-16-1788, Changes can only be made WITHIN the Delegated Powers, but can by NO MEANS DEPART FROM THEM OR ARROGATE ANY NEW POWER.

Mr. Pendleton: "…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: "...If that "latitude" of CONSTRUCTION which he (PATRICK HENRY) contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping (SUPREMACY) clause", there "would" be room for those horrors. But it gives NO supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the "DELEGATED powers".

"If" the "delegation" of their powers be "safe" (IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM UNDER THE "ORIGINAL COMPACT" - CONSTITUTION - THAT CREATED THE SOCIETY), no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "BUT" explanatory. For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves AUTHORITY (ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ORIGINAL COMPACT) to make laws to execute it."

----

And to Conclude:

John Locke #201: "It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well as that;

for WHEREVER the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the "PRESERVATION OF THEIR PROPERTIES" is applied to "OTHER ENDS" (i.e. OTHER PURPOSES),

and made use of to "IMPOVERISH", "HARASS", or "SUBDUE" them to the ARBITRARY and IRREGULAR commands of those that have it, THERE it presently becomes "TYRANNY",

whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better."

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

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Mr. Corbin: "…Animadverting on Mr. (PATRICK) Henry's observations, that the French had been the instruments of their OWN slavery, that the Germans had enslaved the Germans, and the Spaniards the Spaniards, &c., he asked if those nations knew "ANY THING OF REPRESENTATION".

THE "WANT" (LACK) of "THIS KNOWLEDGE" was the "PRINCIPLE CAUSE" of their BONDAGE. …"

These 4 Documents in PDF: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf

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.

Freedom and Liberty is Not Anything One Wants

Freedom and Liberty is Not Anything One Wants:

Again John Locke Defines this correctly:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

Locke #21. "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the "LAW OF NATURE" for his rule. (APP Note: See this exact wording in the Rights of the Colonists - http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r... )

The liberty of man "in society" is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact "ACCORDING" to the "TRUST" (The ORIGINAL COMPACT THAT CREATED THE SOCIETY AND DELEGATED THE LIMITED POWERS) put in it.

FREEDOM, THEN, IS "NOT" what Sir Robert Filmer tells us: "A liberty for every one to do what he "LISTS" (WANTS), to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws";

but FREEDOM of men under government (IN SOCIETY) is to have a "STANDING RULE TO LIVE BY", "COMMON" TO EVERY ONE OF THAT SOCIETY, and made by the legislative power erected in it.

(APP: Another corruption in the United States is the granting of EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES, which are not even suppose to exist in a free country; More on this subject HERE: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl... )

A "LIBERTY" to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as FREEDOM OF NATURE is to be under no other restraint but the "LAW OF NATURE"."

-----

Locke #57: "...So that however it may be mistaken, the end (PURPOSE) of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.

For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, WHERE THERE IS NO LAW THERE IS NO FREEDOM.

FOR LIBERTY is to be free from restraint and violence from others, WHICH CANNOT BE WHERE THERE IS NO LAW;

and is NOT, as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he "LISTS" (WANTS)."

FOR WHO COULD BE FREE, when every other man's "HUMOUR" MIGHT DOMINEER OVER HIM?

BUT A "LIBERTY" to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property WITHIN THE ALLOWANCE OF THOSE LAWS UNDER WHICH HE IS, and therein NOT BE SUBJECT to the ARBITRARY WILL of another, but FREELY follow his own."

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

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

On Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

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.

Thanks

Shared on Twitter.

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

Render unto Cesar that which belongs to Cesar

My Life does not belong to Obama.

I will not render it to his BS healthcare system.

He does not own my 2nd amendment.

All that belongs to Obama is piles and piles of funny money. He can have the worthless FRN's.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon