Armed liberty activists swarm NH state house---Wow! Now This Is What A Revolution Should Be!!

I appologize for causing a stir or offending anyone on this site. That post was not meant for this blog or forum, it was supposed to be on another page.

It was a mistake but I take full responsibility for it. Please forgive me.

I am all for the efforts of the brave New Hampshire-ians (what do the New Hampshire residents call themselves?) I considered moving there as part of the freedom movement. I am proud to have supported a similar bill here in my home state of Michigan.

________________________________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

An explanation please? To label the content of these speeches as B.S. or Propaganda is contradictory to "ACTUAL" constitutional theory as it was understood by practically the whole of the United States up until Joesph Story published his book on the subject 40 years after ratification (the textbooks of West Point and other colleges which taught our leaders attest to this fact): and Story's new view of the Federal government was not well received when first stated.
Later that same opinion had grown ground by those who lusted for more government control, and men such as the likes of Daniel Webster from Massachusetts perpetuated the idea. Webster was actually so adamant that the word compact not be used in the discussion of the constitution that he practically breathed fire when addressing Senator John C. Calhoun’s mention of it in the Senate. “[Calhoun] introduces a new word of his own, viz., ‘compact’. . . and degrades the Constitution into an insignificant idle epithet attached to compact.” In his opinion, “The man is almost untrue to his country who calls the Constitution a compact.” So according to Webster, who was only six years old when our Constitution was ratified, the answer is unequivocally that it is not a compact born out of sovereign states. One would also surmise from Webster’s statement that Calhoun’s reference to a “compact” was an idea born out of political conjuring on Calhoun's own part— but was it?

• James Madison in the 1798 Virginia Resolve, wrote that “the Federal Government as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties.”

• Madison in a letter to Edward Everett, in 1830 said that the Constitution was “a compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity.” Elsewhere in this same letter he refers to the states as “the parties to the Constitutional compact.”

• Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, though a notable advocate for strong national government said at the assembly of 1787 that he “came here to form a compact for the good of America. He was ready to do so with all the States. He hoped and believed that all would enter into such a compact. . . . But as the compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree to.”

• The first chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, who believed in the expansion of federal power, in the case of Chisholm v. State of Georgia, “expressly declares that the Constitution of the United States is a compact.”

• The sixth president of the United States, John Quincy Adams, stated “Our Constitution of the United States and all our State Constitutions, have been voluntary compacts.”

• Thomas Jefferson once explained that “[t]he states entered into a compact which is called the Constitution of the United States.”

• In the Federalist No. 85, Hamilton referred to the Constitution as “[t]he compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct States in a common bond of amity and Union.” He also explained that, if it were to be altered in any way, those changes “must undergo a new decision of each State.”

• The representative of Massachusetts, Elbert Gerry, said, “If nine out of thirteen[states] can dissolve the compact six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the new one hereafter.”

• Edmund Pendleton, who was president of the 1778 Virginia ratifying convention, in calling for support of the new Constitution, stated, “This is the only Government founded in real compact.”

• Massachusetts, home state of none other than Senator Daniel Webster, at its own ratification convention, issued that the citizens of Massachusetts were “entering into an explicit and solemn compact. . . .”

If that was not enough to convince you that Story and Webster were misguided, or lying, let me issue another quote; this one spewed forth from Webster’s own lips just three years before his tirade on Calhoun, while debating Senator Henry S. Foote’s resolution he referred to “accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the Constitutional compact.” It’s strange what just three years of age can do to a mind!

So what would the Founding Fathers have said to men such as Webster should they have been alive to hear such conflicting constitutional theories? Well, it just so happens that Madison, the Founder who is often referred to as "the Father of the Constitution", was still alive when Webster made his historical speech against Calhoun! He even wrote Mr.Webster a letter correcting him on some of his misguided utterances about the Founder's intent.

In this letter he addresses Webster's comments on the right to secession stating that "[it] dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression." He goes on to talk about "whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States," which was then cropping up as newly conceived "theoretic discussion by animated partizans." Madison then relates to Webster that "[i]t is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity."
He goes further by asserting that "[t]he Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases [meaning nullification and secession].
"The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle."
Alright, so now we’ve established that Webster was wrong (we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt)-- what about their coveted argument invoking the wording of the Constitution’s Preamble: “We the People.” As they see it this shows that American citizens are of one body, rather than citizens of independent sovereign states.It is their coup de grâce against sovereignty of the states. Well, let’s take that question to the man who was head of the committee on attending to the diction, or wording of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania.
Morris, in his book The Life and Writings of, wrote that the meaning behind the phrase “We the people” which he authored, and the actual Constitution itself was a compact not between individuals, but between political societies, the people, not to America, but of the United States, each enjoying sovereign power and of course equal rights.
Also worth pointing out is that throughout the whole of The Madison Papers --over 900 pages covering 1787 Constitutional Convention proceedings and the debates which took place within-- there is not one discussion to be found regarding citizens being one people outside their individual states.

Hopefully from this, and the wealth of other pre- Joseph Story information out there all of us gather that the Constitution with out a doubt, was and is intended to be, a compact between sovereign states.