Constitutional Law Enforcement Association

0 votes

"When the United States of America was founded the framers spent arduous hours devising a Constitution that would protect future generations from tyranny and government criminality. A system of checks and balances was established to keep all government, especially at the federal level, from becoming too powerful and abusive.

The Bill of Rights was promulgated to augment the limitations previously placed against the government, to further insure that government would stay in its proper domain.

So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!

Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?

The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people's protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals. Their backpeddling and excuses will be more plentiful than radar tickets and louder than sirens at doughnut time. Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it's just the opposite; the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both "foreign and domestic."

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR SHERIFF RICHARD MACK

http://constitutionallawenforcementassoc.blogspot.com

Comment viewing options

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

In Pennsylvania...

we will be running and winning a Sheriff seat next election cycle. We are running a Ron Paul republican and she is the real deal. Her big issues are property rights, Second Amendment and she has vowed to never let the federal government in our County for "good" or for bad. It will be an easy victory because there is no opposition. There are 67 Counties in Pennsylvania. Now if we can get the other 66 Counties "cleaned up" only time will tell.

wwwCampaignForLiberty.com

"Constitutional Homeland Security Associations" (CHSA's)

That's great, one county at

That's great, one county at a time. If we can begin to place people in strategic offices, such as local Sheriffs, reclaiming the country county by county, then State by State we will have a chance for success in an actual rEVOLution.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.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 (1886-1912)

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

http://www.1776solution.b...

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.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 (1886-1912)

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

In Venezuela, the people reversed a coupe d'etat in 2002

because they supported their own Constitution.

See documentary on Google Video, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"

I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.--Hippolyte Taine

2nd Amendment

It is the duty of the people with the right given to us under the second amendment to protect our rights and our Constitution. If your counting on someone to protect you, your out of luck.

The 2nd Amendment was not

The 2nd Amendment was not given to us under the Constitution. It is a God given Right. Even without the 2nd Amendment, we have the Right to Defend ourselves. Government does not give Rights. Rights are a natural possession. Government gives, and takes away, Privilges. If you speak of something I don't like, I can put a gun to your head and tell you shut up. It is your chose whether to shup up or keep talking. I can kill you and you will talk no more, but then I would be guilty stealing your life. A Right is something you own, and it can only be taken from you through a Criminal Action.

Nobody can stop you from defending yourself. The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to defend yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

"The 2nd Amendment was not

"The 2nd Amendment was not given to us under the Constitution. It is a God given Right."

The problem with this statement is that it hangs rights on a supernatural claim. All anyone has to do to shoot it down is to demand proof of God. When you fail to meet the demand, all your "God given" rights disappear.

But there's no need to invoke the supernatural to defend natural rights. Their basis lies in self-ownership. John Locke probably explained this best.

Your overall point is correct of course, that rights differ from privileges in that they cannot be revoked. Michael Badnarik is quite eloquent on this.

Rights, Principles and Natural Law

>The problem with this statement is that it hangs rights on a supernatural claim.
>All anyone has to do to shoot it down is to demand proof of God.
>When you fail to meet the demand, all your "God given" rights disappear.

This is a conundrum statement. It is true up to a point then it fails utterly. If it is presumed "supernatural" is something beyond "laws of nature" then your statement is more or less correct. However it is held there is nothing or no thing beyond the laws of nature. A natural law is a timeless/spaceless principle, wholly invisible yet absolute in power. It is certain and demonstrable mankind does not yet know all the laws of nature. So to presuppose there are forces acting beyond the laws of nature is an unfounded presumption. It also presupposes humanity knows all there is to know about matter, energy and the laws that govern same - which is an absurdity. It is my premise, which I've stated elsewhere, < http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunity1.html > that this non-thing so many call "God" is in actuality those known laws of nature and those not yet known by humanity as also the intelligence inherent therein. As there is nothing or no thing beyond nature, which includes all that there is visible and invisible, this thing called "God" would be included in nature and is not beyond visible and invisible nature. Some belief systems claim "God" is all of nature, visible and invisible. Even the great scientists have admitted there is an inherent intelligence in matter and energy that causes them to behave the way they do.

"We must assume behind this force [in the atom] the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. " --Max Planck, accepting the Nobel Prize for Physics, 1918

There is this inherent intelligence (consciousness) that acts, according to known and unknown laws of nature, that creates and manages all of nature regardless of Time and Space. Therefore there are further considerations of Purpose and Will....

Rights are the acknowledgement and management of a set of natural laws as concerns an individuated center of consciousness and substance; i.e., a human being.

The real ontological discussion would then be why and how did all this universe with its countless galaxies and laws come into being? Is it all the result of One Big Banged up accident? That theory supposes inert unintelligent matter pre-existed the principles and laws that created it. It could be said to have been self-created by this man-created concept called "God" but ignores the origin of "God" consciousness, its substance, purpose, beingness, etc. More likely though we might be more comfortable with the concept there are some things, states and conditions beyond the kin and imagination of human consciousness.

supernatural
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) [Merriam-Webster]

SUPERNATURAL, a. [super and natural.] Being beyond or exceeding the powers or laws of nature; miraculous. A supernatural event is one which is not produced according to the ordinary or established laws of natural things. Thus if iron has more specific gravity than water, it will sink in that fluid; and the floating of iron on water must be a supernatural event. Now no human being can alter a law of nature; the floating of iron on water therefore must be caused by divine power specially exerted to suspend, in this instance,a law of nature. Hence supernatural events or miracles can be produced only by the immediate agency of divine power. [Webster 1828]

Can't someone quote some Jefferson here?

"it is held there is nothing or no thing beyond the laws of nature. A natural law is a timeless/spaceless principle, wholly invisible yet absolute in power."

I see you are a Platonist. I'm not; I'm Aristotelian. I don't believe that principles (like mathematical relationships as Pythagoras did) have reality apart from Einstein's space-time.

"It is certain and demonstrable mankind does not yet know all the laws of nature."

Imperfect knowledge and ignorance is facile skepticism and hardly support for positing a hypothesis, and very poor substitute for reasonably probable doubt.

"So to presuppose there are forces acting beyond the laws of nature is an unfounded presumption."

Not if you have good cause to believe God is independent and transcendent of the universe.

"As there is nothing or no thing beyond nature, which includes all that there is visible and invisible, this thing called "God" would be included in nature and is not beyond visible and invisible nature."

Unfounded, unprovable, and against many faiths. Your faith is OK. Others are not?

"Even the great scientists have admitted there is an inherent intelligence in matter and energy that causes them to behave the way they do."

The great ones? Only the "great" ones believe as you do? Unfounded subjective reasoning. Prejudiced argument to authority. Ever do a comprehensive survey?

"The real ontological discussion would then be why and how did all this universe with its countless galaxies and laws come into being? Is it all the result of One Big Banged up accident?"

The universe wasn't "created". It did not "come into being". The universe as modern science (since Einstein) understands is a space-time manifold. You cannot "create" time; time encompasses creating. Creating is contingent on the existence of time to create something in! Time is finite (according to some good arguments), but for all space-time that exists, existence has existed. The big bang and big crunch (if there is one) may be event-points on a manifold, like navels on an orange, or ends on a pipe, whatever.

Aristotle even noted that there are no beginning of beginnings of beginnings....Zeno's Paradox. Yet three of Aquinas' proofs for God's existence (first cause, prime mover, father/originator) are based on these, (I'll excuse his ignorance of Einstein and physics). But he does posit God as *outside*, transcendent and encompassing the universe.

"That theory supposes inert unintelligent matter pre-existed the principles and laws that created it. It could be said to have been self-created by this man-created concept called "God" but ignores the origin of "God" consciousness, its substance, purpose, beingness, etc."

Read some material about Aquinas, who discusses God's nature. The Summa was fogged my brain. I slog through some Kant, but Aquinas! Anyways,

Material has identity, its nature. Changing matter (acting matter) acts according to its identity. When you say "intelligent" you are referring to principles of physics as if the principles were not intrinsic identity-attributes of the matter (quantum states of space-time) manifesting them.

You are a Platonist; many are, and many need, IMHO, a good dose of physics and philosophy. For whatever their other faults, I've come to admire Catholicism. Its ancient scholarly traditions shames us protestants. But Aristotle was right, Plato wrong on this issue, IMHO.

Although, there are some like Roger Penrose who dissent, I won't quibble if matter is made of mind-stuff, or mind-stuff is made of matter when it boils down to semantics because its the same stuff acting according to its identity, or manifesting identity according to the identity of its action.

Finally Ayn Rand would shred us both with her "stolen concept" argument; the only things we can know are a result of identities of the acting-matter composing us, in the universe at-large. We cannot posit anything outside this, because what we know is based on conceptions as identifications of differences between things. And we can't notice the difference between what's outside of all we can know (the know universe). You may have been thinking along these lines.

The theist retorts to Miss Rand that God reaches from outside the universe to us. Miss Rand might reply "prove it, or go find a shrink".

"More likely though we might be more comfortable with the concept there are some things, states and conditions beyond the kin and imagination of human consciousness."

No for me; ignorance is a vexing itch calling for scientific and philosophic safari and feast.

Regimented unThinkerism

Sorry. I do not see myself as any kind, type or variety of "ist" unless it be a "free thinkerist".
 

A "God" is a Ruler of Men.

A "God" is a Ruler of Men. Pharaoh was a God, Ceaser was a God. Gods are not supernatural. They are merely Rulers. The idea of a supernatural being is, IMO, an ideal of a modern religion and IMO is a perversion of the God of Abraham. The idea of "God" is not a supernatural God, but a Natural God. Its is from God (of Abraham) that the Common Law comes, Natural Law, and Natural Rights.

Webster's
Covenant: 1: a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement : compact
2 a: a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action b: the common-law action to recover damages for breach of such a contract

The Gods on Earth, Pharoah, Ceasar, The King, or the Legislature, Rule by Contract, a Covenant. The God of Abraham is the same. It is the Covenant with an Unseen God, an Unseen Ruler. It is PRECISELY that there is no proof of this God that gives one a Covenant to be one's own Ruler. It is a Covenant with a Ruler that desires us to live under Free Will, Freedom of Choice in every aspect of Life, provided you do no harm to others in your actions.

Even under Pharoah, Ceasar, or any other "False" God's covenant, one was not allow to have duel covenants. There can be a covenant with only one. Under the False God's covenants you receive benefits in exchange for consideration, it is a contract for slavery. It is selling youself to the "Devil", which is slavery. A covenant with the God of Abraham is Freedom.

The LEGAL definition of Church:
CHURCH In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate his doctrines and ordinances. A body or community of Christians, UNITED UNDER ONE FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY THE PROFESSION OF ONE FAITH, and the observance of the same rituals and ceremonies.

Black's Law Dictionary 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th eds.

If one makes a contract, covenant, with a Church then one is accepting the Rule of that church, under God. If that Church is under a 501 c status, then that Church is itself an extention of the Federal Government and the Contract is still with Government.

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher liberty. For there is no liberty but of God: the liberties that be
are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth (opposes) the liberty, resisteth (opposes) the
ordinance of God: and they that resist (sets one's self against) shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the liberty? Do
that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.” Romans 13: 1,3

http://www.hisholychurch.net/booklets/romans1307st.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Legalism

When I read "Natural Law", especially in the context of American history, I think of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason", his demolition of the common, crude anthropomorphisms in the Bible attributed to the transcendent spirit God.

Very few now take the Bible so literally they literally believe in Eden, the Flood, et.

Exactly! This is why we will not

send our children to govt. school, or accept tax relief for doing that, accept welfare, etc. Jehovah Jireh, (the Lord is my provider), whether for free education or food, or other provisions, when one accepts provision from the state, we believe the state becomes our god. I still am trying to figure out if paying taxes etc, fits into this. Of course the govt is forcing me to do that, but they don't force me to accept their gifts, and education. I suppose there are areas that I am not consistent on this, but trying to be, as we get them sorted out in our mind and educating ourselves.

It is the Perversion of the

It is the Perversion of the Idea of what a "God" is that really screws up the whole deal. A God is merely one who rules over men, not a Supernatural being as the Churchs today seem to have convinced people.

"The Emperor held the political office of Apotheosis, “Appointer of gods”, not because of any
superstitious belief in stone idols, but because he appointed the imperial judges throughout the Empire.
That same office exists today in the United States as well as most other governments where
benefactors exercise authority one over the other. George Washington is honored with that same title of
Apotheosis31 in the painting by the same name seen in the Rotunda, the fresco on the interior of the
Capital dome in Washington D.C.."

http://www.hisholychurch.net/booklets/romans1307st.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Thanks

Good Post,,

Police officers are Citizens first and their duty to obey the constitution and respect personal rights outweighs their duty to their job.

Their is a higher law.

Great post.

.

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

Outstanding post!

......bump....

Berwick, Columbia County, Pennsylvania
Ron Paul 2012 - The People's Choice
rEVOLution SuperPAC: http://www.revolutionpac.com/
WTP Federal Lawsuit to BAN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2011-07-26...

I wish more people would

I wish more people would focus on this area. WE need a concerted effort to educate and elect sheriffs who understand this.

-----
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. H. L. Mencken

Get Prepared!

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

Get Prepared!

2010

I suspect many here would make great candidates for sheriff. After all, who knows more about the Constitution? ......Republicae? :-)

The Constitution is UNLAWFUL

We were NOT originally a Republic, we were the Several Republics. Every Nation within the Union was a Republic. This is the ONLY mention of "Republic" within the Constitution. The Indidvidual Nations were Republics, there is nothing that in any way defined the Central Body as a Republic.

The 14th Amendment eliminated this Clause (Art.IV, Sec 4). Prior to the 14th, NO citizen had the FEDERAL right to vote, save a few Electors from each State, the State Legislatures had the power to determine how the Senate, President and Vice were elected, and which Citizens could vote for House Reps. The 14th Amendment very slyly eliminated the Republics, created a Democracy, and turn the Several Nations into districts of THE Nation. It eliminated the Nations and created A Nation. It is the Creation of a Communist USA.

13 years after publication of the Communist Manifesto the War Against the States began. 20 years after the publication of the Communist Manifesto the Several Nations became the one Nation, United States of America, a central Democracy. A Communist Nation.

The 14th Amendment was a Military Coup that overthrew our original Government, just as the Constitution was a Coup that overthrew our original government.

The Prophetic words of Patrick Henry:
When the 1787 Constitution was ready to be submitted to the Governors of the states for ratification, Patrick Henry, the immortal voice for Liberty, lectured against it in the Virginia State House for three weeks, criticizing the Constitution, warning that it had been written “as if good men will take office!” He asked “what they would do when evil men took office!” “When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion,” he declared, “and they will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade!” He further warned that the new federal government had too much money and too much power and it would consolidate power unto itself, converting us “into one solid empire.” And the President with the treaty power would “lead in the treason.”

The US Constitution did not create a Republic of Republics, it created a Democracy of Republics.

The Constitution created a Democracy of Republics. A democracy is Majority Rule. The Articles of Confederation established UNANIMOUS CONSENT, not Democracy. The Constitution overthrew this ideal, and the ratifiaction of the Constitution was unlawful. The Constitution, by the Common Law, is null and void.

Articles of Confederation
"Article XIII. ...nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of EVERY State."

The Constitution was declared ratified when only 9 of the original 13 Nations accepted it. This is a direct violation of the Law that was in effect, the Articles of Confederation.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" Bugs Bunny
"Scwewy Wabbit!" Elmer Fudd

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Right TEX, Right.....I think

Right TEX, Right.....I think if you read much more of the historical documents you will find that both Jefferson and Madison were well aware that this was a Republic of Republics, each of the States being Free, Independent and Sovereign both before and after the ratification of the Constitution.

The fault is not in the Constitution sir, but in the inability of the American People to stand upon that Constitution with the courage and bravery that first brought this country into being! We lost our country because we do nothing!

Indeed, the entire premise of the federal government was one of an agent of the Several States that formed a voluntary union simply to represent those Several States in a very limited, very narrow framework. The Founders were also very well aware that there was always the propensity of government, given time, to become tyrannical, to that end the Founders were very clear that the Right to Bear Arms served one purpose and one only and that was to physically defend the People against such transgressions from an overbearing federal government which they all understood as a foreign entity. The Several States, each with their own Constitution, makes up the country, the federal government is, or should be, only a reflection of the Republics for which it serves, not rules.

I also suggest that you read the entire volume of John C. Calhoun's work on the Disquisition of Government, it is an extremely well written expose on just what this country is comprised of and that the federal government was to be nothing more than an administrative institution for the benefit of the Several State Republics, each Independent and Soveriegn States with seperate Constitutions.

Just because there has been, as the Founders foresaw, a grand distortion of the Principles of the Constitution, does not mean that it is voided by such distortion. In fact, the Constitution did in fact create a multi-layed Republic of Republics, even down to the checks and balances imbedded within the structure of the Several States, which were to serve as an immediate check on the over-extension of the federal delegated powers. The superior governments, in the case of our Republic of Republics, is that of the States. It was the States, based upon the Soveriegnty of the People of those Republics, which created the federal government, which according to the Federalist Papers is subordinate to that of the States.

It is perhaps the most incredible layered system of government ever to be conceived and even though that is true, even the Founders were well aware of the nature of men and the propensity for men to seek to subvert power and authority to their own ends.

Concerning a Republic, it operates by Concurrent Consent to provide the ultimate protection against majority rule, unfortunately we have lost a great deal over the years, especially with the 17th Amendment, which was primarily intended to protect the usurpation of power by the federal government. Once the 17th Amendment was "ratified" it placed the Senate under the democratic process of direct elections taking it out of the hands of the State Legislatures, this was a primary check on federal powers by the States.

Mr. Madison stated: “If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated [not absorbed] into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation…. In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.”

As you see, Mr. Madison was well aware of the dangers and sought to prevent such consolidation by imbedding as many checks and balances as possible within the Constitution. Mr. Madison, one should not forget, was an ardent defender of the Independence and Sovereignty of the Several States...addtionally, he is called the Father of the Constitution because he crafted much of it with the Sovereignty of the Individual State Republics in mind.

Mr. Madison is very clear, that there is an extremely important reason behind placing layers of separation within the structure of a government that is bound by a “simple league”, Sovereign and Independent States, each sharing in the common council of both through their individual Senators appointed by the States to serve, not the nation, but the respective States.

Mr. Madison goes on to say: “Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."

Mr. Madison clearly states that the structural requirement of Senators who are answerable to their respective States is imperative to the maintenance of both checks and balances within the structure as a whole and to protect the Will of the People through the ancillary Sovereignty of the States. Additionally, this structure was also an essential element in preventing potential excesses in legislation.

Mr. Madison then gives a more thorough explanation of the reasons behind the particular Constitutional Structure of the Republic:

“First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance, which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government."

You will notice Mr. Madison states, in no uncertain terms, that by requiring two separate and distinct bodies, as in the House of Representatives and the Senate, that such a structure not only provides a vital check on government in general, but it also doubles the security of the People themselves by requiring concurrence of those bodies. Such concurrence would provide a necessary check to potential ambitions, usurpations and corruption that could easily occur if there was but one body or if the two mirrored one another.

It 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.

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.

"All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either." Thomas Paine

As Thomas Paine said, time does not alter either the nature or the quality of the principles behind power. Either that power is delegated from a superior source of Sovereignty or it is assumed and therefore usurped. Now, the question of Sovereignty is perhaps one of the most important questions concerning the degree and quality of Liberty within this country. Only a Sovereign Source can delegate power and authority; likewise, only a Subordinate Source can receive those delegated powers and authority to act upon them.

It then becomes quite obvious in the following words within the Declaration of Independence where all Sovereignty emanates: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" Those peculiar words were to declare the independence of the colonies from Britain. Additionally, once the War for American Independence was won, Great Britain recognized each State, by name, as being Sovereign and Independent States. This same phraseology was then used in the Articles of Confederation in the description of the States.

When these same States, by the consent of their Citizens, through Convention ratified the Constitution they did so in the same Sovereign Status as they did when they Declared their Independence to form a Revolutionary government and then formulated a Confederation through Consent and Compact; as the need arose they then entered into a Compact between themselves to form the Sovereign States in Union. They, through Consent, retained the same style throughout every stage of political formation. Each government, both the government of the Several States and the general government of the States or the federal government, were delegated powers and authority derived from the Consent of the People Sovereign.

The facts are well-established and the provision within the Constitution is too explicit to deduct any other opinion except that the States retained their Sovereign Status through the delegated authority and powers of the People through their Consent. So, even after the Ratification of the Constitution, the independent, distinct and sovereign character by which they both formed and ratified that Compact was never divested from the States, nor the People. The People are the Prima Materia Imperium from which all Powers and Authority stems within this country and within both the State and the federal governments, it can not originate in either government since they are both ordained and established by the People. Remember, a thing created can never be greater then the one who created it, the act of creation is the superior act.

Each government is the natural extension of the governed since each government, whether State or general, partakes in the character of the source which formed it to act as an Agent on the behalf of those who gave Consent; thereby delegating authority and power to act in their best interests. Since Sovereignty is the source of all delegated powers and authority, the primary benefactor of such power and authority will be the States in which the Sovereign People reside, from there the States, acting as Agents of the People will properly delegate and grant a degree of authority and powers to the general or federal government to act in a limited capacity on behalf of the States united as a political community for the Sole Benefit of their Citizens.

The federal government has no powers or authority that emanates inherently from itself, despite its claim to the contrary, but must rely solely upon the delegation of those powers and that authority from the Sovereignty of the People of the Several States. The federal government is a reflection of the States united through the Voluntary Compact of Union, otherwise known as the Constitution.

The allegiance of the People therefore, will naturally be toward their respective States since it is the Several States that make up the Voluntary Union of States which reflects those States through the usage of Three Distinct and Separate Branches. Each of those Branches are also totally dependent on the Concurrent Consent of the States and the People in their Sovereign Character as each Branch depends on the Delegation of Their Power and Authority to act.

So, the States were Ordained to act through the powers and authority delegated to them by the Sovereign People of each State, in turn the federal government was Ordained by the States to act both on the behalf of the States and in turn the People Sovereign. The government of the United States is not now, nor has it ever been singular, but reflects the Several States by their Concurrent Consent as Ordained and Granted by the People.

The Preamble of the Constitution defines the reasons for the Ordination of the government and those reasons are clearly enumerated as very specific objects: "to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." So, it was the Several States, or the People that make up the Several States, that Ordained the government through the Ratification of the Constitution between them; this Act of Concurrent Consent and Ratification did not place the federal government over the States or the People, the Several States, and thus the People only delegated a degree of authority and power to it in order for it to fulfill the specific enumerated objects previously stated.

It is obvious therefore, or at least it should be, that the one to whom authority and power is delegated is not, nor can it be higher then the one delegating that power and authority. The Authority that ordains and establishes must therefore, be higher than that which is ordained and established. This should be common sense, unfortunately the assumption of powers not only usurps common sense, but power as well.

The 10th Amendment states clearly that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, by the Compact between the Several States vested a degree of power and authority to the general or federal government. It split this power and authority between Three Branches, distinct in purpose and operations. The 10th Amendment then continues to say that those powers that are not delegated to the federal government and that are not prohibited by it [the Constitution] are reserved to the States or to the People. This is not a limitation upon either the States or the People, but solely upon the federal government of these United States. It is also apparent that there are powers and authority that the People did not delegate to either the States or the federal government, but that are completely retained by them alone.

This is the bar, the measurement of all government action and legislation. There can be no action or legislation that infringes upon the Retained Rights, the Retained Authority and Power of the People. Although Congress and even the State Legislatures tend to present and pass legislation that does not conform to the principle that the People retain these Sovereign Characteristics, the proper and legal measure of all legislation is if that legislation contradicts those Rights Reserved and Retained by the People and the People alone. There are, in additional to those Rights enumerated within the Constitution, Rights, Power and Authority Retained by the People which are not mentioned, not enumerated within the Constitutional Compact.

Additionally, even the Supreme Court of these United States should, by the act of the Sovereign Source of its own delegated powers, always consider the measure of all opinions based not on an allowable degree of Rights due the People, but solely limiting the assumption of powers by the government itself. The Supreme Court only holds the degree of supremacy as it is delegated to it and no more.

Through the Compact between the Several States, the People ordained and established a government of the People, by the People and solely for benefit of the People. This government was formed and intended to operate as a federal, in contradistinction of a national government. In a national government all other Constitutions and governments, such as those of the States would be superceded and absorbed, but that was never the case, nor is it the case even though for decades that has been the primary focus of certain elements within the federal government and both of the ruling political parties. The Several States are the expression of the People's Sovereignty, as is the federal government the expression of the People's Will through the Several States in Union. Each of the Several States, by Concurrent Consent of the People, ratified this Voluntary and Reflective Union but retained all Sovereignty and Power to alter, abolish or, if necessary, to leave that Voluntary Union.

Likewise, the Executive and the Legislative Branches are only allowed a degree of authority and power as it is delegated to them to perform a very specific and narrow set of obligations to the People. Any actions or Legislation beyond those specific and narrow set of obligations and all Three Branches only assume power, or usurp it from the People.

Of course, through the decades the 10th Amendment, like the 9th has been ignored to the point of being effectively neutralized. There are no divided powers, no divided authority, no divided sovereignty; it all rest within the People and is only delegated to the Several States and to the federal government. The Several States and the federal government hold Authority and Power only in Delegated Trust; with that Trust comes all the Responsibility and Duty enumerated within the Compact between the Several States agreed by Concurrent Consent of the People of those Several States.

Since all Power and Authority is either Delegated through legal Consent or Assumed and thereby Usurped illegally, where does that leave us in our opinion of this current government? What respect or loyalty do We legally have to a government who has illegally Assumed and Usurped its Authority and Power from the People of these Several States united?

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Republicae, have you written, or are you

writing a history book? If not, do you recommend one particular comprehensive American history book?

I have been asked by

I have been asked by numerous people to write a book, but as yet I only have a vast collection of writings that are, to say the least, of such a wide subject matter that I doubt it would make for good reading.

It is very difficult to recommend one single book on American History since history has been subjected to all manner of bias during the decades.

In terms of Constitutional history I would recommend "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" by William Rawle. It was really one of the first published on the subject and was widely used until the 1860s.

I would also recommend "The True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government" by Abel Parket Upshur. Additionally, the John C. Calhoun collection called "Union and Liberty" is of particular value when understanding the proper role of the States in balancing the power of the general government.

Perhaps one of the most interesting books I can recommend is America's Caesar: The Decline and Fall of the Republican Government in the United States of America by Greg Loren Durand. You can find an online edition at:

http://www.crownrights.com/blog/ebook/

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Thanks for the Info

Lots of good information.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

Republicae, do you suppose

that there would have been less federal interference with the rights of the people if we had been left with the Articles of Confederation?

Second question: I have been reading, in my children's homeschool curriculum that the Constitutional Convention was actually illegal by the rules of the Articles of Confederation. Why do you suppose that these men met illegally, without all the states representatives, without the consent of the people, in secret, behind locked doors, and covered windows?

Doesn't indeed the Constitution give the federal govt. more power than the original Articles? And do you think this is part of the problem we are now facing?
I have been wondering all of this for a long time, since reading about "the conspiracy" of the Constitutional Convention. Since you seem to know so much about these things, I hope to hear your take on this. Thanks.

I feel that if the Articles

I feel that if the Articles of Confederation would have remained in place there would not be a country as we now know it, it would have very different borders than ours today, if it existed at all. The unity achieved during the Revolutionary War between the States proved shaky afterwards. There were several problems that included the problems of borders, land grants of territories to the West, commerce, small States versus large States and then there was the problem of foreign powers, such as Great Britain, France and Spain, all of which basically surrounded the newly formed Confederation.

The Constitution basically incorporated the Articles of Confederation and addressed the various weaknesses within the Articles. I could go into the various positions held by both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist, but that would be a very involved expose. I feel that Madison, in particular, was compelled to inject as many layers of checks and balances as possible into the Constitution. One of the most revealing studies is that of James Madison’s The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. It is a substantial study detailing the various positions proposed and the debates that ensued based upon all of those propositions.

Under the Articles, Congress was required to propose any amendments and that all changes be adopted unanimously. Jefferson, one of my historic heroes, opposed the calling of a Convention on various grounds but the primary reason was that he felt that there would be a “give-a-way” to the more powerful factions in the most powerful States. In 1786, five States sent delegates to meet and the outcome of that meeting called for yet another “Convention” to be held in 1787 in order to consider changes which “may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony.”

Congress, after great compromise and a heck of a lot of persuasion by James Madison, agreed to the Constitutional Convention, but placed numerous conditions and some very strong limitations on the power of the Convention to create an actual mandate to institute any changes to the Articles of Confederation. On February 21, 1787, Congress unanimously passed a resolution calling for the Convention to proceed to discuss any alterations or revisions to the Articles of Confederation.

There were questions as to the form and the legality of the Constitutional Convention however, as George Washington stated:
"The legality of this Convention I do not mean to discuss.... That powers are wanting, none can deny.... That which takes the shortest course to obtain them, will, in my opinion, under present circumstances, be found best. Otherwise, like a house on fire, whilst the most regular mode of extinguishing it is contended for, the building is reduced to ashes." There was a very real possibility of the entire Confederation falling apart or being divided by foreign powers.

The Delegates didn’t meet illegally, they were authorized by Congressional resolution, but the purpose was only to revise or alter the Articles of Confederation; what came out of the Convention was, by some estimation, considerably more. That being said however, it should be noted that even after the Convention the Constitution still required the process of ratification. As I said, the process was arduous and there was a great deal of debate and compromise that had to occur before the document was ready for the ratification process. The ratification process was another major hurdle to cross for the Constitution and the debate raged over the entire country, thus we have the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers that publicly debated whether the Constitution would or would not be implemented.

Now, it is very important to understand just what the changes were made to the Articles of Confederation that transformed them into the Constitution. While some would say that the Constitution formed a central government, based upon my readings of Madison, and even letters to Madison from an original opponent to the Constitution Thomas Jefferson, the Confederation of the Free, Sovereign and Independent State Republics remained in tact. Indeed little changed and based upon the interpretation of Jefferson and Madison they proved that with both the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The States acceded to the union and could, upon any breach of the Constitution by any party, including any by the federal government, secede from that union. [Lincoln suppressed that Constitutional Right and defied the pure intent of the Constitution.] The limited powers delegated to the federal government were very specific, unfortunately various legislative tricks and usurpations have distorted and thus expanded those powers far beyond original intent.

The main fear of the Anti-Federalists was the untested character of the Constitution and the, as they saw, the potential for intrusions of the federal government, thus the compromise was the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are far more substantial than what we now consider them to be or what politicians now consider them to be. In particular, the 9th and 10th Amendments are extremely broad in both expression and application. The problem is that in 1861, all of that was thrown out the window with the military usurpation of power over the actual Independence and Sovereignty of the States.

The main problem is that the People of this country are unaware, distracted and have lost the dire love of Liberty and Freedom necessary to put down all usurpation by either the State government or the federal government.

We must remember, the Constitution did not change the legal nature of country in which we live, we are still a Federation or as Madison stated, a Confederation of Independent States. The problems stem from the fact that the Federation has been usurped by a Nationalist regime which follows a Hamiltonian model, which Lincoln expanded upon and thus we have the problems today that we see.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Thanks, it is good to hear

another's take on this. We had studied how chaotic and non unified the states were and many other aspects when we studied the Constitution, and the Articles. And had read some of the Federalist papers, etc. So this clears up my confusion somewhat.

I would definitely recommend

I would definitely recommend Madison's Notes on the Debates, if you can wade through them. Otherwise I would recommend "A View of the Constitution of the United States" by William Rawle. It was taught in all the colleges and even West Point until 1861 when it was removed because it correctly taught the Right of Secession, a Right that was fully understood by the Founders and those who came afterwards until the Lincolnites and Radical Republicans purged all record of such teaching.

Another book that I highly recommend is by President Franklin Pierce entitled "Federal Usurpation".

I have several others that are invaluable to the study of the Constitution if you would like me to provide them.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Oh, yes, i would especially be interested in

the one by Pierce. I grew up near his home in NH. Funny, when we moved to Virginia, being northerners (they knew when we opened our mouths), we were treated like slimy Yanks, even though we were southern sympathizers. I usually reminded people that Franklin Pierce had Jefferson Davis for his Secretary of War, and that he was pro states rights. I also had to mention that my gggg grandfather WAS NOT Sherman, and in fact the only ancestor I had that fought in the Civil War fought on the side of the south. Didn't make any difference, though. People can be so silly sometimes, thinking that just because someone is from the north, they were the agressor, when in fact it was the govt.