Comment: The Video Misses a few Major Points. LESSON.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Constitution and laws (see in situ)

The Video Misses a few Major Points. LESSON.

The Constitution was written with the principles of Representation under "Original Compacts" i.e. Free Republics based upon Common Law i.e. the "Law of Nature";

Which if misused, in part as it is today, accomplishes what the video presents;

However, the Constitution is NOT a stand alone document; And the "AUTHORIZED" AUTHORITY of the Constitution; or more importantly that power granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government, is NOT unlimited as he suggests.

The Constitution is a "LIMITED REPUBLIC COMPACT", it is NOT a DEMOCRACY.

The Person in this video seems not to understand some of the basic principles of Common Law, the "state of nature" as opposed to that of man in society, under government which end and purpose is to PROTECT PROPERTY, not take it.

The person making this video also has "over simplified and erred" in numerous areas as to the "ORIGINAL COMPACT" i.e US Constitution, and further has made the same mistake as the federal government had done (and is doing again today) to "gain" new power "without authority" in imposing the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790's;

Thereby the person in this video is "PERPETUATING a FALLACY" in regard to the CONSTITUTION.

In the words of James Madison when Nullifying the "Alien and Sedition ACTS" in the Virginia Resolutions 1798 stated , He has "EXPOUNDED ON THE "GENERAL PHRASES" as to DESTROY THE MEANING AND EFFECT, of the particular "ENUMERATION" which NECESSARILY EXPLAINS AND LIMITS THE GENERAL PHRASES". (Read in Full:

The Ratifying Conventions (a)"defined the limits" of the taxation as to what it could collect taxes for; the (b) limits of "Departments" - and equally important the LIMITED "AREA" within the states the federal government was to occupy and only of which those departments could exist:


Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
In Full:

a.) George Nicholas: "that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the GENERAL POWER OF LEGISLATION", but to the >PARTICULAR power> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the "PURPOSE" of paying the "DEBTS" (ONLY) and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE" (ONLY), that is, that they could raise (ONLY) as much money (ONLY) as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", in "CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER"…"

b.) 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."…"


If these LIMITS (and other limits) were followed, there would not be the need for invasive taxation; and the BURDEN of taxation; Which PURPOSE is to PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY would not distorted into a means to take your property.

First let's look at what government and taxation is for.

John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government:
In Full:

Chapter 11: Of the Extent of the Legislative Power

134. THE great end (PURPOSE) of men's "entering into society" being the "ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTIES IN PEACE AND SAFETY", and the "great instrument" and MEANS of that "BEING THE LAWS ESTABLISHED" in that society,

the "first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths" is the "establishing of the legislative" power, as the FIRST AND FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL LAW which is to govern EVEN THE LEGISLATIVE. Itself is the PRESERVATION OF THE SOCIETY and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but "SACRED AND UNALTERABLE" in the hands where "the community have ONCE PLACED IT"


Nor can any edict of anybody else, in what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the "force AND OBLIGATION of a law" which has "not its sanction from that legislative" which the public has chosen and appointed; for without this the law could not have that which is absolutely necessary to its being a law, the CONSENT OF THE SOCIETY, over whom nobody can have a power to make laws9 but by their own CONSENT and by authority received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts.

Nor can any oaths to any foreign power whatsoever (UN OR NATIONAL TREATYS), or any domestic subordinate power, discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative, acting "PURSUANT OF THEIR TRUST", NOR oblige him to any obedience CONTRARY to the laws so enacted OR FARTHER than they do allow, it being ridiculous to imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society which is not the supreme.

135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth, yet, first, it is NOT, NOR CAN possibly be, absolutely ARBITRARY over the lives and fortunes of the people.

For it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person or assembly which is legislator, it can be NO MORE than those persons had in a "state of Nature" "before they entered into society", and "gave it up to the community".

For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, OR TAKE AWAY the life OR PROPERTY of another.

A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having, in the state of Nature, no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the "LAW OF NATURE" gave him for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, this is all he doth, or can give up to the commonwealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have NO MORE THAN THIS.

Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of the society.10 It is a power that hath no other end but PRESERVATION, and therefore can NEVER HAVE THE RIGHT to destroy, enslave, or designedly to IMPOVERISH the subjects;

the obligations of the "LAW OF NATURE" cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have, by human laws, known penalties annexed to them to enforce their observation.

Thus the LAW OF NATURE stands as an eternal rule to all men, "LEGISLATORS" as well as others". The rules that they make for, other men's actions must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the "LAW OF NATURE" -- i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of Nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it. …"

136. Secondly, the legislative or "supreme authority" (LEGISLATIVE) "CANNOT ASSUME TO ITSELF A POWER" to rule by extemporary "ARBITRARY DECREES", but is bound to dispense justice and decide the rights of the subject by "PROMULGATED STANDING LAWS", 11 (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists)

mand is better than that of other men, though his force be a hundred thousand times stronger. And, therefore, whatever form the commonwealth is under, the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions, for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of Nature if they shall have armed one or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force them to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment, unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions. For all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law, and the rulers, too, kept within their due bounds, and not be tempted by the power they have in their hands to employ it to purposes, and by such measures as they would not have known, and own not willingly.

138. Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent.  (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists)

For the preservation of property being the end (PURPOSE) of government, and that (REASON) for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own.

Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that NOBODY hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their OWN CONSENT; without this they have NO PROPERTY AT ALL.

For I have truly NO PROPERTY in that which another can BY RIGHT TAKE from me when he pleases "AGAINST MY CONSENT"

Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the ESTATES of the subject arbitrarily, or take ANY PART of them at pleasure. …"

"….For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from any private man what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he "THINKS" good."

139. But government, into whosesoever hands it is put, being as I have before shown, "ENTRUSTED" WITH THIS "CONDITION", and for "THIS END" (PURPOSE), that men might have and SECURE IN THEIR PROPERTIES, the prince or senate, however it may have power to make laws for the regulating of property between the subjects one amongst another, yet can "NEVER" have a power to take to themselves the whole, or ANY PART of the subjects' property, "WITHOUT THEIR OWN CONSENT"; for this would be in effect to leave them "NO PROPERTY AT ALL". And to let us see that even absolute power, where it is necessary, is not arbitrary by being absolute, but is still limited by that reason and confined to those ends which required it in some cases to be absolute, …"

140. It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent -- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his "own authority", and without such "consent of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of property", and "subverts the end of government". For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself?


Now to understand, the United States is NOT "ONE NATION" but a LIMITED COMPACT Which is directed by the states, each whom has a separate constitution.

The insufficiency presently regarding the states is in their size, which most are too large to provide adequate representation;

More on this subject here:

And where the Person in the video attempts to negate the authority of a social compact, he would also at the same time negate the protections he enjoys from it. And would most likely equally complain if without the protection he enjoys regarding the "FREEDOM OF SPEECH", being jailed or killed without it.

The Constitution is not broke, it is simply being MISUSED;

And that MISUSE comes from people who are ignorant to the Laws and the Reason Behind them for which they were established.

Taking of property is not justified but for "temporary use" and "ONLY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE" (based upon housing soldiers in the time of war) by which one is to be compensated, and the term is another of those that both state and federal government has "EXPOUNDED UPON" to give them powers NO WHERE INTENDED.

Locke 139; "…..but yet we see that neither the sergeant that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money; nor the general that can condemn him to death for deserting his post, or not obeying the most desperate orders, cannot yet with all his absolute power of life and death dispose of one farthing of that soldier's estate, or seize one jot of his goods; whom yet he can command anything, and hang for the least disobedience. Because such a blind obedience is necessary to that end for which the commander has his power -- viz., the preservation of the rest, but the disposing of his goods (PROPERTY) has "NOTHING TO DO WITH IT"."


Absolute Rights of the Colonists, 1772:
In Full:

Samuel Adams: "…All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.--

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.--

All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity.-- (i.e. THE LAW OF NATURE - COMMON LAW)

"…In the state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable natural right to an honourable support from the same principle "that the labourer is worthy of his hire"

but then the "same community" which they SERVE (NOT DICTATED BY UNIONS IN WASHINGTON , DC), ought to be assessors of their pay:

Governors have no right to seek what they please (WHICH UNIONS DO); 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 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"….

3d. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects

A Common Wealth or state is a body politick or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity, by means of their union.5

The absolute Rights of Englishmen, and all freemen in or out of Civil society, are principally, personal security personal liberty and private property.

All Persons born in the British American Colonies are by the laws of God and nature, and by the Common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well Entitled, and by the Acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled to all the natural essential, inherent & inseperable Rights Liberties and Privileges of Subjects born in Great Britain, or within the Realm. Among those Rights are the following; which no men or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves give up, or take away from others ….

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person or by his Representative.--

These are some of the FIRST PRINCIPLES of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of ALL FREE STATES, and of the British Constitution in particular.

It is utterly irreconcileable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the COMMON LAW, common sense and REASON, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists. ..."


Again From the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:


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 Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes  and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture.  a.) 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:

b.)  piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
c.) offenses against the laws of nations;

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".


(APP Note: See this also in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions - Kentucky Resolutions #2 - This can be no clearer, the federal government and all those officials and citizens who support or allow others to be prosecuted under any "other crimes and punishments" not listed are in DIRECT VIOLATION to the Constitution they claim to uphold.)

If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded. A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING" CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE.

They BELONG TO US "AS MUCH" as if they had been inserted in the Constitution. (APP Note: Which they eventually were) But it is said that, if it be doubtful, the possibility of dispute ought to be precluded. Admitting it was proper for the Convention to have inserted a bill of rights, it is not proper here to propose it as the condition of our accession to the Union. Would you reject this government for its omission, dissolve the Union, and bring miseries on yourselves and posterity? I hope the gentleman does not oppose it on this ground solely. Is there another reason? He said that it is not only the general wish of this state, but all the states, to have a bill of rights. If it be so, where is the difficulty of having this done by way of subsequent amendment? We shall find the other states willing to accord with their own favorite wish.

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 (the Federal legislature) "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY CASE" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED"."


With regard to taxation:

Unenumerated Taxation is not a Delegated Power of the "ORIGINAL COMPACT";

Only Enumerated Taxation is;


Mr. 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"."

James Madison: "...If that "latitude" of CONSTRUCTION which he (PATRICK HENRY) contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping (SUPREMACY) 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" (IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM UNDER THE "ORIGINAL COMPACT" - CONSTITUTION - THAT CREATED THE SOCIETY), no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "BUT" explanatory. For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves AUTHORITY (ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ORIGINAL COMPACT) to make laws to execute it."


And to Conclude:

John Locke #201: "It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well as that;

for WHEREVER the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the "PRESERVATION OF THEIR PROPERTIES" is applied to "OTHER ENDS" (i.e. OTHER PURPOSES),

and made use of to "IMPOVERISH", "HARASS", or "SUBDUE" them to the ARBITRARY and IRREGULAR commands of those that have it, THERE it presently becomes "TYRANNY",

whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better."

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Mr. Corbin: "…Animadverting on Mr. (PATRICK) Henry's observations, that the French had been the instruments of their OWN slavery, that the Germans had enslaved the Germans, and the Spaniards the Spaniards, &c., he asked if those nations knew "ANY THING OF REPRESENTATION".


These 4 Documents in PDF:

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.