"Wouldn't you say though that there is legal text ('English') in the document that cannot be constructed OTHER than to check against consolidation (such as that all powers not defined in it were to remain with the states)?"
No different than "read my lips no new taxes" The Federalist Papers and The Constitution were Campaign Promises to be broken, there had to be the False Front of legitimacy in order for there to be a Confidence Scheme or FRAUD working.
The Legal Criminals don't advertize their true Color of Law, that would not work, it would be naked aggression, a naked Emperor openly throttling your throat, and giving you fair warning in advance.
No such thing can happen, since victims don't want to be victims, by definition. Words fail to BE reality, because IS is what it IS, not what it is said to be, IS just IS.
Yes, The Constitution can be interpreted as a Limit of POWER, but why then were there Bills of Rights added even before the thing was accepted as a Limit of POWER?
If it was truly a Limit of POWER, then why was it immediately Limited with The Bill of Rights?
Someone smelled a rat?
"Such that, only actual military invasion by the Federal executive so as to coerce states physically into submission could have actually broken those checks as completely as we see today?"
How about pretending to be a Central Banker wannabe, such as Hamilton or his mentor Morris, and you see what happens in Massachusetts during Shays's Rebellion under The Articles of Confederation?
You see your gravy train evaporating before your eyes as the Subjects, the targets, of your Interest, fight back, and then flee to Vermont. You demand your runaway slaves from Vermont, expecting those Governors to be Central Bankers themselves, and they ignore you.
You can't get your slaves back, and that all happens INSIDE the Federation.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, you cry all the way back to your Central Bank and hatch a plan to keep those slaves enslaved and where do you find any help?
They have a runaway slave problem too?
Talk about making deals with the Devils, how about a Secret Meeting in Philadelphia to iron out the Dirty Compromise and we can all be happily enslaving our pieces of the action?
You think I'm Joe King?
The doors were closed and there was a Gag order placed upon the attendees. You read that book and you get to be a fly on the wall, but that doesn't count up the deeper closed door meetings between the really Centrist Central Players in North and South, you know, the real serious slavers, the dirty dealers, hush, hush, and what, a secret hand shake?
Friends of Liberty?
What has this country already become, since 1776, and it isn't even 1788 yet?
"So that in contrast to your characterizing the war as a 'legal crime' I'm saying it was an illegal crusade (with crusade as in a military expedition that the organisers claim is justified by Christian morality, whether or not that is the case)."
OK, so jumping ahead to the ObamaNation called The Civil War, which wasn't anything close to Civility, you seem to miss the legal precedent provided by Shays's Rebellion.
You seem to be missing the progress into despotism.
Start out with English despotism returning back to the days of King John, overruling Trial by Jury, and now extreme Spiritual Repression, driving Liberty minded people into extreme sacrifice, as many of those runaway slaves run away to a land populated by very strange, different colored Natives, across the ocean to the west.
Add that up to a move toward Liberty, at a very high cost, and it was part of the cycle still, because Trial by Jury in Magna Carte was an earlier victory turned bad, again, like some evil hamster wheel, the victims appear to jump from pan to fire, with little reprieve in between.
But the victories are sweet and could instruct those who prefer Liberty over Despotism.
So, we lost Trial by Jury, but now we have a fresh start in America and that is despite our own home grown Despots who dress up like Indians, Slaughtering the Settlers, blaming the Slaughter of Settlers on the Indians, and then pushing the MOB into thinking it is a good idea to go Slaughter the Indians, and then pay taxes on the land that somehow becomes owned by the same people who hired the people who Slaughtered the Settlers while being dressed up as Indians.
Despite all that, there is Liberty, more or less, at least Liberty FROM the well paid liars in England.
So the well paid Liars in England demand Union Dues, and Americans say no, no thanks, we can't afford those dues, and so Liberty wins again, despite the fact that someone wanted WAR, and those same people happened to Loan out a lot of things, and a lot of fraudulent things, at high prices, at "market prices", profiting from WAR, but despite all that, Friends of Liberty get Liberty FROM those well paid Liars in England with their very expensive Union Dues, that can't be refused, so say the Army and the King who pays the Army with your Union Dues that you pay to The King.
Pay me, or I'll break your legs.
You and what army?
That brings us to Shays's Rebellion, which is knowable as the Last Battle in The Revolutionary War, and the slaves lost, but they ran to Vermont.
Massachusetts was heavily invested in Despotism within the Voluntary Union, and some States, like Vermont, were challenging the Union Dues, shopping around for a better deal, because it was, after all, Liberty, Under the Articles of Confederation.
Vermont did not (yet) consider the Union to be an offer that can't be refused. They were shopping around, to say the least.
Runaway slaves ran to Vermont, they tried to love it in Massachusetts, and not leave it, they tried the ballot box, and they tried the cartridge box, and they lost in Massachusetts, heavily invested in Despotism Massachusetts, so they, running away, ran to Vermont.
Friends of Liberty versus Friends of Legal Crime?
Magna Carte with Trial by Jury wins over King John with absolute and getting more absolute despotism?
Trial by Jury is nullified by the knuckle heads and their devils whispering in their ears so King trumps Subjects again?
Runaway Slaves run to America, where it isn't a cake walk by any means, but Liberty is sweeter than burning at the stake?
The King rears his ugly head once again, the crime of what? Taxation without representation? War, no cake walk again, but Liberty prevails again?
The concept of Voluntary Union is tested as one State experiments in Despotism and the slaves fight back but are defeated and they run to a better State in the Competitive Voluntary Union, such being the Designed IN feature of a Democratic Federated Republic, modeled after the Holland example, the Swiss example, and perhaps even the Athens example of centuries gone by, so Liberty wins again, as Federal Troops are not assembled to force Vermont to give back the slaves who ran from Despotism in Massachusetts?
Central Bankers hold a Secret Meeting with Southern Slavers and they then conduct a False Advertisement Campaign to enforce their Dirty Compromise on the Targeted Victims North and South, East and West, on into the Frontier where all those Rebels went to get away from Central Bankers and Despotism LOOMING inside the Infant Republic?
You can't see the Check Mate yet?
George Washington Crushes the last of The Spirit of Liberty by assembling a Conscripted National Army the size of the Army he abused in the Fight For Liberty, and now he orders those Troops against moral principle to go into a Formerly Sovereign State, Pennsylvanian, where the Rebels are weakest, and the Order is to make an example of what happens when someone dares to invent, produce, and maintain a competitive form of money?
Your words again:
"My point was basically that the invasion was 'illegal' according to the constitution, hence the war."
The Civil War?
You are jumping past The Whiskey Rebellion, or not, so what about the other things on the list of things won by the forces of Despotism, or Legal Crime, or whatever word is in fashion according to the Official Dictionary?
Alien and Sedition Acts?
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?
Old Hickory threatening to invade with Federal Troops while States assemble their State Militias in response?
Suddenly the Civil War just happens and it is "illegal"?
"My point was basically that the invasion was 'illegal' according to the constitution, hence the war. "
The war was conducted so as to slaughter people.
Black, white, young, old, babies, pregnant women, teenagers, workers, slaves, tax payers, Indians, good guys, bad guys, who cares, you?
I get that, but why is it hard to see, if it is hard to see, that the WAR was "hence" because actual people, putting their pants on in the morning, WANTED DEAD PEOPLE on poles, heads cut off, heads stuck on poles, torture chambers, victims strapped down, death, torture, death, torture, and they can't get away with it unless it is covered up somehow.
What better way than to make it lawful for them to do it?
Is that really that hard to see?
"You yourself acknowledged that Madison did INTEND to limit federal power, even if he was unsuccessful and possibly manipulated by Hamilton. So that in contrast to your characterizing the war as a 'legal crime' I'm saying it was an illegal crusade (with crusade as in a military expedition that the organisers claim is justified by Christian morality, whether or not that is the case)."
Jurors, individuals, get to decide what IS legal, or what IS not legal, or even what legal is, when Trial by Jury works as it is designed to work by Jurors, not by me waking up in the morning, putting my pants on, and then reading what the Official Paper says I am supposed to think without question.
That can be preserved, that hard won privilege, under Voluntary Unions, as proven in history, but that cannot be preserved when the subject are convinced that they have to provide the means by which we suffer, that is a no go, or, alternatively: yes lets have Liberty, yes - or no - not maybe.
"The legal justification for its powers as representatives of democratic will. You say it misses the point but that is the point I'm trying to make. The status of the two sides of the war argument according to the law of the Constitution."
I say that the point is to point out the diametric opposite of Voluntary Association and Involuntary Association as those who seek Involuntary Association GET IT in the way that they do GET IT, and if you say that Involuntary Association is "legal", or whatever word you slap onto it, I say that THE POINT IS that it is LEGAL CRIME.
No, of course, the criminals are apt to say that it is legal, sure, I get that, but the victims, each one, wakes up some morning and says, hmmmmmmmmm, paying for my own demise, and working harder to die more miserably, and faster, is not actually what I prefer, and what, exactly, am I leaving the kids?
They never wake up, they keep working harder, they keep getting more miserable, and they die faster as they keep sending more and more of the provisions that provide for their own demise.
They wake up and say fine, I have no problem with it, take me wherever you want me to go, torture chambers, gas chambers, meat grinders, wars for your exclusive profit, how fast do you want me to run, how high do you want me to jump, and by the way there is some brain matter splattered on the boot you have placed on my neck, is it mine, sorry; if you want, if it pleases you, let me lick that jack boot clean.
Which is it?
Something new, something different this time around?
"North and South is intended as shorthand for these two sides/ arguments, not geographically! Guess I should have made that clearer."
If that is what you mean then that is what you mean, and you don't then mean to say, or think, that a thing can be responsible, but the point was pointed out, and it is valid, that there are people who are suckered into thinking that The Gun did it, or The Government did it, or the Pointed Stick did it, while the actual criminals, with or without the badges, perpetuates what the guns, governments, and pointed sticks keep on doing to all those poor innocent people who have piled up, are piling up, and will pile up so long as that LIE remains believable.
Is that worth pointing out, even if you don't, ever, fall victim to it?
"Although still struggle with the idea that the Constitution and Declaration are incompatible."
How about evidence?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Duty IS insurrection against usurping people running governments
Law IS usurpation will be suppressed
One is one thing the other is the opposite thing.
Who judges the case, for example, those people whose duty is was to fight both the British and Massachusetts despots, such as the example provided by Daniel Shays?
Daniel Shays was a Revolutionary War veteran doing his duty in The Revolutionary War, and again doing his duty in Shay's Rebellion, and he, and his army, won the first round, and he, and his army, lost the second round, and in both cases he was operating under The Articles of Confederation, and it was possible to run to Vermont, where the people running Vermont welcomed Revolutionary War Veterans.
The people running Massachusetts wanted to make an example of what happens when Revolutionary War Veterans dare to continue their duty described in The Declaration if Independence.
Who was the judge at the Federal Level then?
Danial Shays voted with his feet, which is how a Democratic Federated Republic is designed to work - voluntarily and competitively despite the often machinations of criminals with badges.
When the same Central Bankers tried the same routine Taxation without Representation under The Constitution, what happens, who is the judge?
Washington pulls Section 8 out of his back pocket?
Conscripts an National Army?
Invades a formerly Sovereign State known as Pennsylvania?
Crushes a few money competitors who dare to make their own usable commodity money while the Central Bankers have managed to make Gold so scarce as to be non-existent, and Hamilton has the unmitigated gall to demand Whiskey Tax payments IN GOLD no less?
Are you kidding me?
"Cannot agree that the Constitution made slavery legal as it was legal beforehand."
It was not legal in Vermont in a specific legal precedent, and at least one Slave ran from Massachusetts where tax slavery was being made legal, as you say: (it was legal beforehand), and then what could the Slave Traders at Nation State Center do about it under The Articles of Confederation?
Congress wrung their hands, pounding sand, and wishing they could go get those slaves back from Vermont, so as to make examples out of them?
That was a legal precedent.
You are deceived, obviously, and measurably, or it is me. So what do I care about that?
"So what you're saying is that the present-day US only actually enjoyed 12 years of true liberty?"
A Legal Fiction (US) is incapable of enjoyment, so I'm not saying the words you appear to think I am saying, if, and this is a long shot, if I understand what you are saying in English.
"Patrick Henry sounds like a good guy, will have to learn more about him!"
Troubled times were upon them, and I think there are things to know - better.
The Daily Paul is a community webs