Comment: The Founders and John Locke have ALREADY Answered This...

(See in situ)


The Founders and John Locke have ALREADY Answered This...

Many people are lost at what is happening because they simply have not read the documents that establish freedom's foundations.

I see weakness even in this gentleman's speech because he is appealing from a unauthorized "top", to expect relief to be granted to the bottom;

When in fact the Opposite is the answer; LOCAL Judges, States and Legislators are the SUPREME power; The "Supreme Court" is LIMITED to the delegated powers and the 10 miles square of Washington DC;

The federal government can make "NO REGULATION that can effect the citizens of the Union at LARGE" Nor prosecute more than the LIMITED 4 crimes granted to them:

READ IT!: Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 and Kentucky Resolutions #2 - Links are presented below...

I will advise everyone to STOP reading modern books and start reading the actual documents.

STOP BEING CONFUSED, STOP BEING IGNORANT, and GET EDUCATED!

If you have not read these 4 SIMPLE documents (approximately 20 pages in all), DO SO; EVEN if they are the only ones you read;

Here are some examples:

1.) The Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, 1798:

(ONLY 2 pages - READ IT!)

In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/candidates

Which illustrates the limitations of the federal government; and teach us BY EXAMPLE that it is in the powers of each state and community to stop these federal aggressions by simply NULLIFYING them. i.e. non enforcement of the aggressions and empowering state powers to make sure that no part of them operate within the state.

2.) John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government

(ONLY 8 Pages - READ IT!):

In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Locke_Civil...

#166: "....That the reigns of "good" princes have been always "MOST DANGEROUS" to the "liberties of their people"."

For when their successors (...Bush, Obama and others), managing the government with "different thoughts", would draw the actions of those good rulers into "PRECEDENT" and make them the standard of their "PREROGATIVE" -- as if what had been done only for the good of the people was a right in them to do for the HARM of the people, if they SO PLEASED -- it has often occasioned contest, and sometimes public disorders, before the people could RECOVER their "ORIGINAL RIGHT" and get that to be declared NOT to be "prerogative" which truly was "NEVER SO";

#227"...And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the "LEGISLATORS THEMSELVES", as has been shown, can be no less esteemed so, when they who were set up for the "PROTECTION and preservation of the PEOPLE, their LIBERTIES and PROPERTIES" shall by force INVADE and endeavour to TAKE THEM AWAY; and so they putting themselves into a "STATE OF WAR" with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels.

#141: "...Fourthly. The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to "any other hands", for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. (APP Note: The United Nations Has No Powers because the United States federal Government having "LIMITED delegated powers" CANNOT arrogate any new powers, nor transfer powers, not existing or contrary to the peoples rights, of the United States, to others) The people alone can appoint the form of the commonwealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the people have said, "We will submit, and be governed by laws made by such men, and in such forms," nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; NOR can they be bound by ANY laws but such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen and AUTHORIZED (under the ORIGINAL COMPACT) to make laws for them.

#142. These are the "bounds" which the "trust" that is put in them by the society and the law of God and Nature have set to the legislative power of every commonwealth, in ALL forms of government..."

3.) Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

(ONLY 8 Pages - READ IT!):

In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

George Mason: "...Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "THIS" government (Federal Government under the U.S. Constitution), and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "THOSE" powers; could not Congress, under the "IDEA" of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE", and under their "OWN" "CONSTRUCTION", say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people?

And could they (the Federal Government) not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press?

Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?

Would they not "extend" their implication?

It appears to me that they MAY and "WILL".

And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare (APP Note: Defense against "Foreign" aggression) of the Union, I grant.

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to "ALL POWERS" which are "NOT GRANTED", that they are RETAINED by the states.

Otherwise, the power of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE" may be "PERVERTED TO ITS DESTRUCTION"."

James Madison: "...If that "latitude" of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause", there "would" be room for those HORRORS.

But it gives NO supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the "delegated powers".

"If" the "delegation" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause.

It is at most "BUT" explanatory. ..."

Edmund Pendleton: "...I understand that clause as NOT going a "single step beyond" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."

George Nicholas "...The gentleman last up says that the power of legislation includes every thing. A general power of legislation does. But this is a special power of legislation. Therefore, it does NOT contain that plenitude of power which he imagines. They "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY case" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED"."

4.) Absolute Rights of the Colonists, 1772

(ONLY 2 pages - READ IT!)

Samuel Adams: "...Governors have "NO RIGHT" to "SEEK what they PLEASE"; (i.e. The Federal or state Legislators cannot vote in their own pay or pay raises)

by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable "SERVANTS" of the society, they would SOON BECOME Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants.

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

In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their "ESSENTIAL NATURAL RIGHTS", or the "MEANS" (ARMS, LIBERTY and SPEECH) of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the very NATURE of its institution is for the support, PROTECTION and defence of those VERY RIGHTS: the principal of which as is before observed, are life, liberty and property.

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the [Volume 5, Page 396] right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave--"

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

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

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