“Foedal is pronounced "few-dal," and is the same as
"feudal. " "Feudalism" is a federal system in which
servant, serf, is bound by a foedum or campact to his master
My thoughts on the statement above. Did not each state already have a state constitution? Was that not a feudal compact? I wonder how the state governments came into power. Were they elected of the people, by the people and for the people. (I suppose I would have to start reading state constitutions to find out…) And then those feudal systems (the states) made federal compacts with one another; i.e., a contract between nations (the states). What then is the “national” constitution but a feudal compact? Is not that compact between the individuals of the nation and the government of the nation? So then, where does the statement come “of the people, by the people, for the people?” Perhaps then the constitution is a contract between the people and the people the people elect and that is why it is no longer feudal?
Speaking of which I decided to read the Kentucky resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resoluti... since you alluded to it regarding Madison in your reply to me about pages x and xi and found that that resolution speaks of a compact between the states and the general [consolidated] government thus that may be why Jefferson and Henry were regarded as a Federalist and why the term federal is preferred by JTK as opposed to national?
“The Articles of Confederation that followed was
federal in nature and totally failed to work on a free and
The text above that quote says the articles of confederation were civil law as opposed to common law. Joe, have you read the Articles of Confederation? Do you think I should stop and read them, which I have never done before? (I only started reading the constitution back in 2008 after the Constitution Party gave me a “Citizen’s Rule Book.” Yes that little white book that Miller has in his video. And I am happy to report that I have read it all the way thru more than once LOL.)
The other thing that I would like to note from the Kentucky Resolution…the part that I did read is that the term “general” government is used. Not “national” not “federal,” but “general.” The Virginia resolution uses the term “federal.”
This makes me think about something else. I remember reading in Patrick Henrys discourse on the Constitution something about the Sheriff’s overstepping on the people. And then I start thinking back on that quote quoted by Speer regarding the people expecting a “national” government. Is there a chance that the states were abusing their citizens and thus the people wanted relief thru a national government? Part of the Con Con, or just the way humans begin to treat each other under any system?
This quote from page xiii fits with my statement above:
“The federal government, under the Articles of Confeder-
ation, was a feudal compact between sovereign states and had
unlimited powers over the individual.”
"... in this new and unique system, government
was to operate directly and coercively on individuals - ONLY
WIIHIN THE EXTENT OF ITS POWERS."
Those words lend me to the very first post I read of yours which interested me in your point of view: http://www.dailypaul.com/224429/liberty-versus-legal-crime and my comment http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2359063 If I am remembering correctly, this is the very beginning of my JTK education. Hmmm, but I don’t think I ever saw this link http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1117.html at the top of your post. It kind of blended in with the heading and I didn’t find it today until I started looking for the quote you were quoting: “The Constitution denied the right of the states to issue currency. The federal government alone had this right,”
But I digress. What I was keying upon in the quote from Speer’s work was “coercively” and that brought me to the point you made in that post at the beginning of the great abyss about the constitution being a dictatorial document while the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Bill of Rights were oppositely Liberating Documents. But according to that Speer’s quote from Madison, those “COERSIVE” powers were supposed to be “LIMITED” by the [Dictatorial per JTK] or [Common Law per Miller] or [General per Jefferson] or [Federal per Henry] or [Con Con per Hamilton/Morris????] Constitution. bear says take your pick, I don’t know, I am just a messenger reporting the message that I see and I may be out of the closed loop, but I do not yet know how to interpret what is going on in that loop.
Perhaps this is the proper interpretation?
“This was the grand and noble experiment, an entirely new
concept in the annals of government. The National COnstitu-
tion and the National government which it created, was lim-
ited in its powers over natural born persons (individuals)
to those expressly granted (Le., beyond the extent of
powers granted the natural born inhabitant was to be
governed by the Laws of God and Nature, the Law of
And perhaps the problem is that the Legal Criminals have relegated God to the trash bin of history and now no longer are rights God-given or common to men, but rather now men in the form of government in the form of Legal Criminals interpret and give those rights instead of God. And they say so much either ignorantly or subversively: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2808132
OK the end of page xiii begins to talk about 1933 Black’s law dictionary. I am going to stop my comments and reread that information that I read yesterday. I am going to reread about the fringed flag too. I will comment on those issues tomorrow or at my next opportunity.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinio