Freedom, Contingent Upon Compliance Is Not Freedom!
Submitted by Republicae on Sun, 08/17/2008 - 15:53It is imperative to understand that this country is formed solely upon the Sovereignty of the People themselves and that in that Sovereignty, they have, out of both necessity and desire, come together to form communities of governments to act both on their behalf and upon their Consent. This Sovereignty finds its expression, and has done so, in the governments of the Several States, which in turn, have reflected their Will in the formation of a federation of States called the United States.
The Several States, in the purist expression of the People's Sovereignty have formed, established and delegated the government federal. The Rights of the People are embedded in the Rights of the States, you cannot have one without the other, nor can you have a delegation of authority and power without such Rights, both Reserved and Delegated. It is the Delegated Trust, from the People through the medium of their Respective States to the federal government, which pronounced and delineates the Sovereignty of the People themselves.
Delegated powers must always subordinate to those Reserved by both the States and the People. The powers Reserved by the People and thereby the States, which represent them, have the complete power to Amend the federal government by Constitutional Convention with three-fourths Concurrent Majority voting in assent. This power speaks to the sole Sovereignty of the People through the medium of the States in which they resided and hold their Citizenship. The subordinate federal government is simply the reflection of the States and thereby the People.
In its formation, the federal government is simply a reflection of the compact between the States, who by Consent of the People, did ratify that compact between them. The Constitution was not formed by the federal government but the federal government by the Constitution. This Constitution was merely a compact of agreement between the Several States acting upon the Consent and Will of the People who resided in those States. As such, this compact, with its specified provisions and divisions of authority and power, was and is subject to the continued Consent and Will of the People through their respective mediums of government, the States.
There is, in the essence of primacy, no such thing as States Rights outside of the delegation of both authority and power to the Several States by the People of those States. Likewise, there is no Sovereignty in either the Several States or the federal government outside of the Delegation, in Trust, of such authorities and powers by the People themselves as expressed in the Compact between the Several States, reflected in the federal government. The Constitution was not, nor is it today, an agreement between the Several States and the federal government since the federal government has no inherent powers or authority within itself. The Constitution solely an agreement between the People, through the medium of the Several States, and themselves.
The Constitutions of the Several States preceded both the formation of the Constitution and federal government so too, do they precede it in both execution and authority. The language of the Constitution cannot be stronger in the delineation of delegated authority and power emanating from the States, by the Consent of the People themselves to the federal government. As such, this agreement, ratified between the Several States, solely upon the Consent of the People, seeks to guards the Reserved Powers of the People, thus the Several States, against the government as a whole and against all its departments, officers and any mode that might be devised which would impair such construction thereby impeding the Reserved Powers of the States, respectively, which solely reflect the Rights of the People. It was this intention, clearly enumerated, to place the Reserved Powers of the States, and thus the People, beyond the possible interference and control of the federal government of the United States.
It was also clearly stated that, in consideration of these Reserved and Delegated Powers, that the Right of the Separate Governments of the Several States was complete and contained within themselves to protect their own Powers and Authorities as Consented to by the People to represent them respectively in each of their respective States. As to the federal government, the provisions of this Compact between the States, through the Consent of the People, was to allow for the protection of those Delegated Powers to the federal government as long as the federal government, thus the majority of the States, continued adherence to the provisions agreed upon by the Constitution.
To speak to the Delegation of Powers to the federal government, the Constitutional Convention was very deliberate in both content and expression, especially in the inclusions of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. One of the more interesting facts is that the final version of the 10th Amendment was far more expansion as it was originally proposed which was worded in a far more restrictive verse: "That each State in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the Constitution, delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government."
Of course, in the Resolutions of Ratification by the Several States, the meaning of both the 9th and 10th Amendments is clearly expounded. These Resolutions express the exact nature and character of what was taking place as they Ratified the agreement between them called the Constitution of the United States. This agreement did not place any Power or Authority within the grasp of the federal government as inherent, but only as Delegated in Trust. That Trust only extended to, and was expressed by the continuation of maintenance of the provisions of that agreement; upon violation of such provisions it was expressly expounded that such violations would effectively nullify and render void the agreement itself, thereby rendering the Several States to their original form as separate governments without an agreement forming a federal government between them to reflect certain preset and limited requirements.
In these Delegate Powers, the People, through the medium of the Several States, have given or granted an agency of execution of such Delegated Powers to act on behalf of the People themselves; thus performing certain duties, restricted by Compact, that are intimately connected with the Principle Power of the People themselves. Without such agency, all ability to act upon these Delegated Powers would be nugatory therefore, such powers are delineated in a structure of government broken into various Branches, each set with particular limited powers and overlapping powers crafted to both execute and check the powers of each Branch. So too, in the creation of a multi-layered government structure, the Several States play an indispensable role in maintaining balance within the system and in the protection of their Citizens.
Now, to reiterate the scope of the Powers of the Several States and thus the People themselves who delegate such Powers to the States we need look no further, of course, than the Constitution. In support of this opinion the Constitution is of extreme clarity, it relies upon, in the first place, on the 2nd Section of the 6th Article, which provides the following: " This Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land: and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." It is apparent in this clause that there is a very definite supremacy associated with the mechanics of the government of the United States except when such supremacy contradicts or infringes upon the laws or Constitutions of the Several States. This is a delineation of the various levels of Power and Authority that has been duly delegated to each stratus of government, from those of the States themselves, then to those that the federal government reflects in both application and scope of such powers and authorities thus delegated.
It is, or should be sufficient to see that such a statement is declaratory in both nature and character and that there are no powers or authorities vested in the federal government by the Constitution that extend beyond those enumerated in the Delegated Trust placed into the mechanics of the federal government as it reflects the Will of the People as expressed through their Respective States. The layers of supremacy results from the relationship that was formed between the Several States in agreement to form the federal government and within the very specified limits placed upon the federal government by the States in Convention. The reach of the federal government does not extend beyond the Delegated Trust of powers and authority, all others being Reserved to the States and to the People of the States. Beyond these enumerated and thus Delegated Powers, the Constitution is completely destitute of all authority. In other words, without the Delegation of these very limited powers by the States, acting upon the Consent of the People themselves, all execution of any power or authority by the federal government any operations outside such of Delegated powers is mere assumption and therefore illegal.
It is interesting to see just what the Delegates of the Constitution Convention rejected when they dismissed certain "articles", and it is this dismissal that speak volumes about what was and was not intended in the construction of Constitutional Order, thus the various delegation of powers to the States and the federal government. As reported by Committee, the following words were proposed and then rejected: "The acts of the legislature of the United States, made in pursuance of this Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Several States, and of their Citizens and inhabitants; and the Judges of the Several States shall be bound thereby, in their decisions; any thing in the Constitutions or laws of the Several States to the contrary notwithstanding." As we can see, there is a very distinct difference between what was proposed and what was approved for final ratification by the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The above, as opposed to the prior approved version, clearly demonstrates the designation of supremacy over the mechanics of the federal government by the Constitutions and laws of the Several States.
Thus such limitations on the scope of supremacy of the federal government, in all its operations and powers, were marked with such distinction and clarity that there should be no need to elucidate, but obviously that is not the case. These limitations are clarified, not only in degree, but also in extent. It is within these limitations duly imposed upon the government by the authority of the Constitution, as agreed in Compact by the Several States in Convention, that the proper operation of government can be achieved and assure the protection of the Will and Rights of the People. To assume that the government can carry its own supremacy beyond such limitations, thus extending its own authority over the Reserved Powers of the Several States, in any shape, channel or form, would essentially destroy the entire system of the Republic by consolidating all its power in the hands of the government without regard to the Will of the People.
Thus we have seen that there has, through the decades, been a rapid expansion of the reach of the authority and powers that the federal government has assumed. This assumption is nothing more than usurpation, illegal under the Compact between the Several States as Ratified and, as we see, very detrimental to the Rights of the People. Even within the governments of the Several States, authority and power has been usurped from the People who retain Rights that are not even enumerated within the Constitution itself. We have been effectively taught that the Rights stated within the document of the Constitution are the only Rights We the People have, but that is untrue. There are Rights that were never Delegated to either the States or the federal government, not only were such Rights never Delegated they were not even enumerated; yet we make no claim upon them.
Congress and indeed the State Legislatures have both extended themselves and the scope of their power beyond that which was delegated. Our times have seen a myriad of novelty legislation emanating from both bodies however, this does not mean that such legislation is legal in the Constitution sense, it merely denotes that both legislative bodies have made an assumption of powers and authorities beyond those delegated to them. The law, whether on the level of the federal government or the State, must also be as proper as it is necessary. Without those two standards of character, then the law is without competency and should be considered void of demand.
The law therefore must yield that which is both proper and necessary, under such delegated powers, to be executed legally. We must realize, and therefore press upon all government, that is it, both our Right and therefore our Power to establish and ordain our government. Indeed, we have, ordained and established our State governments through their State Constitutions; from that origin, the States, by our Consent and through such Powers and Authority Delegated in Trust, did ordain and establish the federal government upon our behalf and for our sole benefit. We did so, in such ordination and establishment, form separate State Constitutions and thereby State governments, each created by itself and for itself without any concert or agreement with any of the other States; afterwards, in our Sovereignty, we did ordain and establish the federal government to be a reflection of the States to perform very specific functions within a very limited scope of delegated power.
Unlike the ordination and establishment of the governments of the Several States, the planning, ordination and execution of the federal government was done in concert and agreement between the Several States. It is this very same Power and Authority, through the Conventions of the Several States that did ordain and establish a federal government. This Supreme Power, as declared by the 10th Amendment, still resides within the People themselves and is solely Reserved by the People of the Respective States. I dare say that while there are those who would claim that such Power has been extinguished, they either fail to understand or refuse to assent to the Authority that still resides within the People themselves and if they hold such views then they only continue to allow for the assumption of power by the federal government.
This is the Right of the People, to Retain and Reserve those Powers and Authorities unto themselves and to exercise such Rights even when the various departments of government act to the contrary. Although there are those who would, through such assumption, lay claim to power and authority through the government, in both its infringements and abuses over Constitutional Order; there must come a time when We the People realize, and therefore exercise, the fact that Sovereignty resides in the People and not in government. When government, at any level, relinquishes its loyalty to the Constitution, the People themselves are released from all allegiance to the government for it is impossible for the People to remain loyal to an un-loyal, and therefore illegal government.
It must be logical to adhere to the principle that, so far as the federal government is concerned, that the People of the Several States can act in the very same way, in the same capacity, in which they did ordain and establish the federal government by Constitution, can, by the same united and concurrent voice, change, abolish or establish another government in its place, as well as completely dissolve the Union altogether. The Power to ordain and establish must also, by the very nature of such Power, have the Authority and Ability to dissolve the agreement that they entered into by Concurrent Consent. This, both the act of creation and dissolution, is an example of the high Sovereignty of the People. If this is not the case then all our Rights are contingent upon the whims of the government and our compliance to its will regardless of our desires or Consent. Our system must stand as one in the relationship of the superior to the subordinate, the People themselves being superior to the subordinate federal government as the creator to the created.
An interesting note concerning constitutions is that the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics included within its articles the right of any Soviet Republic to Secede. The banality of that right can be seen in the way that constitution was ordained and established; in contradistinction to our own Constitution, the constitution of the former U.S.S.R. was ordained by the central government itself, for itself, of itself, and did not rely upon the consent of the people over whom this legal document resided. Of course, the right of secession was among many rights guaranteed to the people of the former Soviet Union however, since none of those rights and indeed the existence of the Soviet government itself did not depend upon the consent or will of the people and since the people themselves held no concept of their natural rights or sovereignty, the constitution was of no effect regarding the people themselves or their potential grievances. This is an example of what happens when there is a complete centralization of power. All so-called rights in such a system are absolutely contingent upon compliance.
In our original, thus former Constitutional Republic, it was the People, after all, that both called for the creation and existence of the federal government and conferred upon it all the powers and authorities it utilizes. Without such conferment the federal government has no ability or power to operate in any capacity or strength whatsoever, in fact, there would be no federal government since it emanates solely from the Consent of the People. As we have seen however, there has been a consolidation of powers and authorities by the federal government, centralized over the years to the effect that the Powers and Authority Reserved to the States and the People respectively have been assumed and absorbed by the centralized federal government; the effects of this process is evident.
So, the People of the Several States, in the essence of their Sovereign Capacity, agreed to unite themselves in a connection what was as close as possible without merging their Respective Sovereignties, the States, into one common sovereignty and consolidated government. For, it that had been the case we would not have State Constitutions or State governments and would only have one central government with one Constitution. The governments and Constitutions of the Several States are not, in any way, subordinate to the federal government, just the opposite is true. As to this Compact, that is the view of the document that legally provides the provisions of the functionaries of the federal government on behalf of the People in the Several States.
It is, in no way, the rule over the individual governments of those States, only the rule over the federal government as emplaced by the Several States in Compact. To use the language of the Constitution itself, it was solely ordained as the "Constitution for the United States" and not over them as they Ratified it between themselves. So, if a State or several States violate the provisions of the document they violate it in terms of the Compact made between the States, but when the federal government violates the document it violates the Law as set forth by that document as ordained by the Several States.
The Constitution was ordained over the federal government, over all departments and functions of the federal government, not over the States, which possess their own Constitutions that provide for the laws of each of the Several States. The federal government is therefore, under complete obligation to follow the strict legal format enumerated in the Constitution as it was ordained and established by the Ratification of the Several States in Compact Agreement between them. In the most distilled legal form, the federal government owes complete and absolute allegiance to the People as reflected through the Compact enacted between the Several States. So, if the Constitution is indeed a Compact between the Several States, acting in their Sovereign Capacity, upon Consent of their Sovereign Citizens, the rest should logically follow the necessary consequences of that action of ordination and establishment.
The absorption of Reserved Powers by the Delegated Authority is one, as we have seen for the last 150 years, of the most pressing dangers to the future health and well-being of our country for the absorption of those Powers Reserved to the States and to the People respectively effectively neutralizes the Rights of the People themselves. There can be no restoration of the Constitutional Republic without the restoration of the proper role of the Several States along with the Power and Authority Reserved to them and the Sovereignty of the People. Conversely, if the federal government is not reigned into and limited to the scope of power and authority that was Delegated to it in Trust, then there can and will be no restoration of the Constitutional Republic.
Some speak of a "living constitution," the meaning of which may evolve and change over time. However, the concept of a "living contract," one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown. A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation."
As we see, the issue of centralized power is gradually being questioned, not only by Citizens in their Individual Status, but also by the States. It is once again time to make this a primary issue in our hopes for the Restoration of the Republic for without the proper role of government, without the checks and balances as enumerated within the Constitutional Compact as Ratified Between the Several States then this country will continue down the road that will only lead to an increase of centralized power and tyranny. Without the proper exercise of Power and Authority as delineated within the Constitution the hopes and dreams of those who maintain Constitutional Patriotism will never be realized. We must make every concerted effort to regain each and every legislature of each State in order to press upon the federal government its place as a subordinate servant of the People.
This is indeed a Revolution that is no less important, no less critical for our Liberty than that fought in 1776. The results of this Revolution will determine the future of this country and whether our children and children's children will enjoy the Heritage of Liberty passed down from those who had the insight to form and craft our once-prosperous Republic. Increasingly, there will be forces, which will rise against all who contend that these Principles are both valid and pertinent to our lives and the wellbeing of our country. At some point in the future we must all decide whether we will be considered merely collaborators with the centralized power expressed by the federal government or if we will oppose such assumption of powers and therefore be considered, for all intents and purposes, enemies of such usurpation of power by that government.
We have become a society which must seek permission, pay taxes, fees, hold licenses and generally comply with all codes, rules, regulations and legislations whether they be proper and necessary or not. We are a society that must completely rely upon our complance to the central government, and increasingly to another layer of compliance acts legislated by our own States, if we wish to remain relatviely free and unfettered in our pursuits.
THE DAY MUST COME WHEN WE REALIZE THAT FREEDOM CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE IS NOT FREEDOM!
In Liberty,
Republicae



















Yes, But… … this
Yes, But…
… this excellent ( but a bit pedantic ) analysis of the powers reserved by the 10th Amendment doesn’t go far enough in discussing the unenumerated rights retained by the people in the 9th. However, you go too far when you state:
“The Rights of the People are embedded in the Rights of the States, you cannot have one without the other,…”
First, as I'm sure you would agree, States have Powers, not Rights, under our constitutional framework. Rights are resident only in the people. There are no group, and certainly no government, rights. This is not mere semantics.
Second, I don’t think I am splitting hairs in objecting to your use of the word 'embedded', or the phrase 'cannot have one without the other' since such an overstatement incorrectly implies the two spheres are coextensive, or suggests some amalgamation which would fail to acknowledge the transcendence of natural rights retained by the people, which rights certainly are not dependent upon any government for recognition.
I hope we don’t go too far in developing the somewhat esoteric nuances of these concepts between ourselves at this stage of the revolution since we don’t want to discourage all of The Remnant, and more, to study and embrace these precepts which were in common circulation and more universally appreciated at the time of the founding of our original republic.
I have often said that the natural law underpinnings of our founding documents is like spelunking for principles among the evidence of our earth sciences or looking to discover and understand the laws of the universe as revealed by observing the motion of heavenly bodies. Such knowledge is accessible to each of us and is as immutable as is any law of nature, no less than the law of gravity, for example.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47924#comment-453833
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/46862#comment-441853
In this context, I wish to underscore your conclusion that: “ The results of this Revolution will determine the future of this country and whether our children and children's children will enjoy the Heritage of Liberty…” In the constitutions of many of the states you will see a variation of this affirmative guarantee which first appears in the seminal Virginia Declaration of Rights: “ That no free Government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
This was understood by the Founders, when adopted in 1776, as more than an empty admonition. In order that the fundamental principles (to which we must frequently recur) are given force and effect such concepts must once again gain meaning as intended.
On this important need to help our compatriots be ready to restore the system of ordered liberty which was once well appreciated by the original founders let’s have Galileo make the concluding point. We are, after all, talking about discovering and coming to understand fundamental laws of Nature, the appreciation of which challenges prevailing orthodoxy of the ruling elite. Here Galileo explains why he wrote his theories in what he called “the colloquial tongue”:
“I am induced to do this by seeing how young men are sent through the universities at random to be made physicians, philosophers, and so on; thus many of them are committed to professions for which they are unsuited, while other men who would be fitted for these are taken up by family cares and other occupations remote from literature. The latter are, as Ruzzante would say, furnished with “horse sense,” but because they are unable to read things that are “Greek to them” they become convinced that in those “big books there are great things of logic and philosophy and still more that is way over their heads.” Now I want them to see that just as nature has given to them, as well as to philosophers, eyes with which to see her works, so she has also given them brains capable of penetrating and understanding them.”
If the fundamental principles of our founding are ever to serve as a substantive guarantee providing limitations on government described in your essay, these core precepts must again be appreciated beyond The Remnant or they will remain what they have been allowed to become – mere empty platitudes of a lost era.
Actually, I don’t think I
Actually, I don’t think I did go too far regarding State’s rights, if the States have no rights then neither do the People since the States are the first reflective of the People’s Will. The States are simply expressions of the Will of the People, the People’s Rights are indeed embedded in the rights of the States, as witnessed to by both The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, in which the rights of the States, via the consent of the People, expressly nullified what was perceived as un-Constitutional legislation in the federal government through the agency of Congress.
In fact, in the Federalist Papers, you will notice that Madison used several terms regarding the States, three of those specific terms he used regarding the States were powers, rights and privileges, each carrying with it a certain degree of specificity of usage and extent. It should also be noted that when speaking on usurpation regarding the States, it is used in similar terms regarding possible abuses of the federal government over the States, including usurpation of the rights of the States.
In the Federalist #28, he was very specific regarding just how the function of these particular rights worked against the usurpation of the federal government over the People. In fact, from the beginning, even during the time of the Articles of Confederation, the States were regarded as having certain rights, agreed by compact, expressing the Will of the People to act on their behalf. Such as the right of a State to attest to or reject certain federal legislations not enumerated in the Constitutional Compact between the States, in convention by the consent of the People. The States do indeed have rights, right which include the right of nullification, the right of jurisdictional and territorial integrity, the right of self-government or a Republican form of government, etc. The fact of the matter is that the States are the vehicle used to assist in the exercise the Rights of the Individual, the States are the bulwark against federal usurpation of the Rights of the Individual. Thus, the Rights of the Individual are indeed embedded within the rights of the States since the States are the reflective agent of the People.
If you read the various original Constitutions of the States, you will clearly see that the States themselves thought they had certain rights, privileges and powers.
Patrick Henry went as far as asking why the words “We, the People” were used instead of “We, the States”, which he felt was more appropriate regarding the Constitution since they were the direct agents of the People, in fact he thought that by expressing it as “We, the People” it presented the possibility of expressing a consolidation instead of separate independent States. Henry said: “What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask: Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one, great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all states.
Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others.
If we admit this consolidate government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.”
Finally, at least for tonight, read Madison’s Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, there are ample references to the rights of the States, additionally I would recommend The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution. In fact, Virginia, and a few other States made it clear that they reserved certain rights if any portion of the Compact [Constitution] was violated by any other party in the Compact. That right was the right of Secession.
Both provide great material regarding just what they considered as State’s rights and how those rights corresponded to and supported the Rights of the Individual. Now, the difference between the two types of rights is enormous, the Rights of the Individual is based upon Natural Rights, not rights that are granted. States rights are only granted rights, based upon and extended through the Natural Rights of the Individual. Thus the Natural Rights of the Individual are embedded within and supportive of the rights of the States, as reflected by the consent and Will of the People within each of the Several States.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent...to put shackles upon sleeping men.
— Voltairine de Cleyre
Semantics Or Schism ?
I will take some time to consult the sources you reference, particularly, as you recommend, Madison’s discussion of distinctions between States’ powers, privileges and rights in the Federalist. There is certainly something more here to contemplate, but much of the discussion concerning state authority viz. federal usurpation is often clouded by sloppy reference to state rights when the intention is to discuss state power. I prefer to use to phrase ‘state prerogatives’ to describe the realm of action by which a state is entitled to exclude intrusion by others. This way there remains a contradistinction from the scope of action retained by individuals which governments and other groups may never enjoy and which, I imagine, we can agree cannot be cataloged since they remain Natural Rights, resident only in individuals, unalienable and inherent. These true rights, of the most sublime category, are different by their nature because they preexist any agreements, authority or sovereign construct. I concede that individuals and groups ( associations, governments and the like ) can have prerogatives by contractual covenant or other agreement or conferred, which once granted, become rights, of sorts – more than at will revocable privileges – but they can never achieve the status of natural rights. Moreover, Natural Rights can never be bestowed upon such groups, even by voluntary assignment from those entities which possess such rights ( individuals ). Any such attempted assignment is not just voidable, but void ab initio, since these natural rights are always unalienable. I wonder if we agree on these premises, so that perhaps our apparent divergence was merely semantics? All this being said, I generally agree with you when you state:
“ The fact of the matter is that the States are the vehicle used to assist in the exercise the Rights of the Individual, the States are the bulwark against federal usurpation of the Rights of the Individual. Thus, the Rights of the Individual are indeed embedded within the rights of the States since the States are the reflective agent of the People.”
I still have trouble with your use of the word embedded. There strikes me as something promiscuous about the term which implies a subsuming of the entirety, one within the other. This may be like a religious debate over how to appreciate the concept of the Trinity as dogma. I guess my views place me squarely in some Gnostic tradition of rights theory that resists amalgamating rights which I would say should always be held jealously by individuals demur to surrender any sovereignty over their rights, though at times they must align with states ( or other power blocks ) to defend their rights and prerogatives against power plays and usurpations.
While I follow up on your leads and think on this further, you tell me – how far apart are we?
Actually, we are not far
Actually, we are not far apart at all, in fact, I would say that we are pretty much on the same page just a different paragraph.
Concerning rights, I think I delineated the difference between those, which are Natural, being inherent in the individual and those, which are granted to the States by the citizens of those States. It is similar to Sovereignty, the States are described as Distinct, Independent and Sovereign States; this description is very strange because the same verbiage also is related to the individual, especially Sovereignty. So, is there a divided Sovereignty? I don’t think so; it appears that the Sovereignty of the States is simply a reflection of the Sovereign People within those States. State governments therefore, to which the Constitution referred to, are in their high character of independent and sovereign communities of People, through convention of the People, called, in each State, by the sole authority of the People, thus reflecting their Will and Consent to govern in accordance to the agreed Compact between them.
We must also understand that in the preparatory process that led to ratification of the Constitution, and the very acts and powers by which that ratification was completed, prove, beyond doubt, that it was ratified by the Several States in their capacity as agents of the People themselves, through the same Distinct and Sovereign Independent Character as the People themselves. Therefore, when we think of “We, the People of the United States, it is evident that the reference means that “We, the People of the Several States of this Union made by and consistent of an agreed Compact between them, meaning the Several States, by Will and Consent of the People of those Several States. Additionally, it is evident that when the term “We, the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America, it meant that they ordained it by Consent, delegated in Convention through the agency of the Several States in which they individually held citizenship.
Again, concerning the Compact between the Several States that formed, by Convention, the federal government, did so with the Consent of People in Concurrent majority. There was great care and circumspect given to the enumeration of powers to the general government, since it had no actual authority within itself, only that which was delegated for specific purposes to express and execute the Will and Consent of the People through the agency of the Several States. Thus, both the general federal government and the State governments each derive all powers and authority from the same source: the People however, it is evident that the powers and authorities delegated are very distinct, each for specific purposes and roles. The prima material, of course being the People themselves as they acted separately in their Sovereign roles within the Several States and in concert regarding the action of agreement in Compact to form the federal government. Therefore, both the Several States and the federal government, being ordained and established by the same source, the People, act, by necessity, as equal in their respective spheres of delegated authority and powers. The Several States however, being the closest reflection of the Will and Consent of the People, has the superior position within the framework of governmental activities, the federal government being a reflection of that Will and Consent as expressed through the Several States. Rights therefore, are similar to Sovereignty, the States have both, but are merely shadows of the Natural Rights and Sovereignty of the People themselves.
By the way, I like your thoughts, they are, thus far, the closest I have found to my own, both in expression and depth.
It's my bedtime...so, for now I close, but definitely look forward to your next round of commentary!
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent...to put shackles upon sleeping men.
— Voltairine de Cleyre