Comment: The Founders Stated the Limitations Very Clearly:

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: That's Garbage (see in situ)

The Founders Stated the Limitations Very Clearly:

Republics are republics precisely because they are established under an "Original Compact" (that does not change) establishing the "principles and laws"; (This is opposed to a Democracy that can change anything)

The Constitution is a "LIMITED" Compact. With "LIMITED" Authority;

The States and People Retained their powers to "discard" it at any time;

Here are just a few of the the FOUNDERS DOCUMENTS that back up and establish this statement:

--------

Virginia Resolution of 1798
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

James Madison:

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic,

and that they will support the "government" of the United States in all measures >>>"WARRANTED" by "the former".

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm "attachment" (NOT SUBJUGATION) to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers;

and that for this "end", it is their "DUTY" to watch over and "oppose every infraction" of those "PRINCIPLES"

which constitute the "ONLY BASIS" of that Union,

because a "faithful observance of them" (THOSE PRINCIPLES), can "ALONE" secure it's "EXISTENCE" and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as "resulting" from the "COMPACT", to which the states are parties; as "LIMITED" by the "PLAIN SENSE AND INTENTION" of the "instrument" "constituting" the "COMPACT"; as >>>"NO FURTHER VALID" that they are "authorized" by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT COMPACT";

and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said "COMPACT",

the STATES who are parties thereto, have the RIGHT, and are in DUTY bound, to "interpose" for "ARRESTING" the progress of the "EVIL", and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. "

--------

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

JAMES MADISON: "...Let me remark, if not already remarked, that there must be a cession, by particular states, of the district to Congress, and that the states may settle the terms of the cession. The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and,

if they apprehend "ANY danger", they may "REFUSE it (the Constitution and federal government) ALTOGETHER"…."

--------

This is because the federal government (federal legislatures) CANNOT make any law they pass "the Law of the (all) the land";

The Supremacy is in the Constitution over the federal government, Not the federal legislature; and the term "Land" with regard to federal supremacy clause (i.e. sweeping clause) was limited to the 10 miles square of Washington, DC. allowing only for the DELEGATED powers:

--------

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates



Thomas Jefferson:



1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a COMPACT under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto,

they constituted a general government for "special purposes" — "delegated" to that government "CERTAIN DEFINITE" powers,

RESERVING, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their OWN self-government;

and that WHENSOEVER the general government assumes undelegated powers,

its acts are "UNAUTHORITATIVE", "VOID", and of "NO FORCE":

that to this compact "each State" acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party:

that the government created by this COMPACT was "NOT" made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself 
;

(APP: i.e. The Federal Supreme Court, Executive or Legislative are not the final judge) 



since that would have made "its discretion", and "not the Constitution", the "MEASURE" of its powers;

but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an EQUAL right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress..

2. " Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish:



a.)  treason,

b.)  counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,

c.)  piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and

d.)  offenses against the law of nations,



and >>>> NO OTHER CRIMES >>>"WHATSOEVER";



and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,

"

therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (>>>> and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so "ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,)

>>> are "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";

and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its "OWN TERRITORY"

--------

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

"...Mr. JOHN MARSHALL asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication.

If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were "MISTAKEN".

The state governments "DID NOT" derive their powers from the general (FEDERAL) government;

but EACH government derived its powers from "the people", and "EACH" was to act "according to the powers given it".

Would any gentleman deny this?

He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so?

Could any man say that this power was not "RETAINED" BY THE "STATES", as they "HAD NOT GIVEN IT AWAY"?

For, says he, does not a power "REMAIN" till it is given away?

The "STATE" legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, "AND HAVE IT STILL, UNDENIABLY",unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For "Continental" purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections (at invitation by the STATE) and repel invasions.

But the power given to the "STATES" by "THE PEOPLE" is "NOT taken away";

"FOR THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY SO".

In the Confederation Congress had this power;

but the state legislatures had it "also".

The power of legislating given them (the federal government) within the "ten miles square" (Washington, DC) is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive.

The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an "incompatibility" in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it.

But there are NO negative words here.

It rests, therefore, with the "STATES".

To me it appears, then, "unquestionable" that the state governments can call forth the militia, "in case the Constitution should be adopted", in the "same manner" as they could have done "before its adoption".

Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves "without an application to Congress", because "Congress" can interpose!

Does not every man feel are "REFUTATION" of the argument in his own breast?

I will show{420} that there could NOT be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.

All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.

This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section.

But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger".

This clearly proves that the "STATES" can use the militia when they find it necessary. ..."

-------

"Nationalism" is "Blind Patriotism" based solely upon borders, nations & flags dictated by those in power from the Top Down;

The Constitution however, was created to insure that the Republican "System" retained the power of the local republics and ultimately LOCAL legislative, Local governments and Local People of those Local Communities retained the supreme power.

--------

Patrick Henry:

"....for the power of a people in a free government is supposed to be "paramount" to the existing (Legislative) power...."

--------

And in that way, the power is maintained by the "Local" People based upon Certain, definite, powers and "PRINCIPLES" long established under Common Law. i.e. "Defined" Patriotism based upon "DEFINED PRINCIPLES":

-------

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

PATRICK HENRY: (WARNED) "…When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the "COMMON LAW" of England to be "in FORCE".

That "SYSTEM OF LAW" (The "PRINCIPLES") which has been admired, and "has PROTECTED us and our ancestors", is excluded by that system.

Added to this, we adopted a "BILL OF RIGHTS"….

--------

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS (Answered) "…But the"COMMON LAW" (THE PRINCIPLES) is "NOT EXCLUDED".

There is "NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion."

…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.

...The gentleman last up says that the power of (FEDERAL) legislation includes every thing.

A general power of legislation does.

BUT this is a "SPECIAL" (VERY LIMITED) power of legislation.

Therefore, it "DOES NOT" CONTAIN THAT PLENITUDE OF POWER which he imagines.

They (THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY CASE" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED" (DELEGATED) …"

--------

MR. JAMES MADISON (Same Day Convention): "… I cannot comprehend that the (Federal Legislative) power of legislating over a "SMALL DISTRICT",

which "CANNOT EXCEED" "TEN MILES SQUARE" (WASHINGTON, DC - The Definition of "LAND" the Constitution was referring to the law of the land; apart from the limited delegated powers that the federal government could not arrogate any new powers "by any means",

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".

PENDLETON: "...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" (DELEGATED) 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" (INCLUDES RATIFYING AND AMENDMENTS) 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".

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.