Comment: The REAL ISSUE: The Federal CANNOT DEFINE LAWS NOT DELEGATED:

(See in situ)


The REAL ISSUE: The Federal CANNOT DEFINE LAWS NOT DELEGATED:

While we can applaud Rand for his efforts here, what is not discussed is the REAL ISSUES,

and those ISSUES are the federal government DEFINING LAWS OUTSIDE THE DELEGATED POWER OF DECLARING WAR, Or MAKING ANY LAW THAT MAY EFFECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNION AT LARGE - i.e. internal laws.

TERRORISM is a NEW FEDERAL DEFINITION. They have NO AUTHORITY TO DEFINE LAWS AGAINST IT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FROM DEFINING OR PROSECUTING NEW CRIMES.

NOR can they GOVERN POLICE outside the 10 Miles Square of Washington DC.

Also, the definition of Treason is skewed to favor a federal government acting outside it's limited Delegated Powers THEMSELVES.... This is treason in itself at the hand of the federal government, not the citizens.

To understand these issues and LIMITATIONS, review these founders quotes from the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788, Kentucky Resolutions and others:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Lets start with James Madison as to the Extent of the federal Legislative Power:

James Madison: "...I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED TEN MILES SQUARE", and "MAY NOT BE MORE THAN ONE MILE", will involve the dangers which he (Patrick Henry) apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of ANY man to grant exclusive advantages, in a VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT, to the prejudice of the community at large. ...The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend ANY danger, they may REFUSE it ALTOGETHER." (limit of supremacy clause legislation = 10 miles square).

On the Limitation set upon the federal government in regard to governing Police:

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)or to make ANY REGULATION that may affect the interests of the citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE". But it gives them power over the LOCAL police of "THE PLACE" (10 miles square), so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair CONSTRUCTION OF THE (SUPREMACY) CLAUSE". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within "THAT DISTRICT". What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state "WHERE IT SHALL BE". What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there, in order to preserve {440} serve the POLICE OF THE PLACE and their OWN PERSONAL independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state "WHERE IT SHALL BE" this is the "FAIR CONSTRUCTION". Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters. (APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have no operation without the limits of that district. Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO effect the moment it would go without that place; for their exclusive power is "CONFINED to THAT DISTRICT". Were they to PASS SUCH A LAW, it would be "NUGATORY" (NULL VOID); and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.This exclusive power is limited to THAT PLACE SOLEY, for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary." ...

With respect to the necessity of the TEN MILES SQUARE being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers "VESTED" by "THIS" Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, 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".

On the Limitation on defining and prescribing crimes other that the 4 delegated to the federal government:

George Nicholas: " But the"COMMON LAW" is"NOT EXCLUDED". There is"NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered)  to warrant the assertion.

As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman  says that, by this (US) Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes  and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture. 

1.)Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the  forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted.

Congress have power to define and punish:

2.)  piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
3.) offenses against the laws of nations;
4.) (counterfeit of currency is the fourth allowed not mentioned here)

but they (APP: the federal government, legislature or supreme court) CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER", WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION"."

-----------

To understand this CORRUPTION of the principles that DEFINE TYRANNY, read John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government From paragraphs 199 to 210.

Further, read 211 on, taking special attention to paragraph 218 regarding the Executive using the "PRETENSE of Authority" against the laws of the Original Compact thereby causing the DISSOLUTION of Government.

http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

To understand the Limitations of Original Compacts, which to understand, that we are a Republic and not a democracy. Republics that are formed under an Original Compact with the people which allows a limited amount of authority and no more.

Locke 212: "...When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the "delegation" of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place who have no such authority or delegation."

See also 166, 171 political power, original and consent of the people, 220, 192 definition - "...and also till they are allowed their due property, which is so to be proprietors of what they have that nobody can take away any part of it without their OWN CONSENT, without which, men under any government are not in the state of free men, but are direct slaves under the force of war..." 230 (crime being committed by our federal government): "...This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to INVADE THE RIGHTS of either prince or people, and LAYS THE FOUNDATION (i.e. "DESIGN") FOR OVERTURNING THE CONSTITUTION and frame of any just government (i.e ORIGINAL COMPACT i.e. CONSTITUTION(S)), he is guilty of the GREATEST CRIME I think a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country; and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be treated accordingly."

Samuel Adams, Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:

"...When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary CONSENT; and they have a RIGHT to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And "PREVIOUS LIMITATIONS" as form an equitable "ORIGINAL COMPACT".-- Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact necessarily ceded REMAINS.--"

See also Kentucky resolutions 1798 - Thomas Jefferson, repeating what George Nicholas said in the ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: In Full - See Paragraph #2: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

Richard Taylor
Chair
American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nati...

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.
Feel free to re-post elsewhere.

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.