by Timothy Baldwin
After my latest article, Our Dead Constitution, was released, I received much response, many from those who understood and agreed, and some by those who were opposed to my statement, “Our constitution is dead.” This leads me to reasonably believe that many of us need to be educated about what a constitution actually is before constitutional law and freedom can be restored throughout the states.
1. A constitution does not create freedom. A constitution is created only to protect and secure freedom which already exists, through forms, structure and limitations of government. This is what our founders said in the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Therefore, if one’s perspective about the U.S. Constitution is that it statically creates freedom for all the people of the states, then I could understand how he would be shocked or angered at the suggestion that the U.S. Constitution is dead. To the contrary, we know that freedom exists in a state of nature, created by God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These natural laws and rights never die. They existed prior to 1787 and they will exist after we are gone. Thus, a distinction must be made between natural freedom (which never dies) and a constitution (which can die).
2. A constitution may be worthless to secure freedom. History proves this–even America’s history. A constitution rests upon a serious distrust of human nature, and simultaneously upon the skeptical and temporary trust placed in delegated power, which supposedly will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” James Madison, Federalist Paper (FP) 46. These principles determine the constitution’s nature, character, form, and function. This necessarily means that a constitution itself is to be contrasted to the eternal principles that formed the constitution, and where government does not conform its actions and intentions to the principles of the constitution, the constitution itself is practically meaningless and dead. American jurist, William Rawle, expresses the same: “By a constitution we mean the principles on which a government is formed and conducted.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2.
That our government must conform its actions and intentions to these principles is confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, by those who formed our constitutions, and by those who helped form the very fundamental thoughts of American jurisprudence: (1) “Let the nature and objects of our Union be considered; let the great fundamental principles on which the fabric stands be examined.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 423 (1821). (2) “[N]o free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but…by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Benjamin Kidd, Principles of Western Civilisation, citing Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776, (London, The Macmillan Co., 1902), 511. (3) “Once the principles of government are corrupted, the very best laws become bad and turn against the [people of the] state.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 116.
Thus, a maxim must be admitted: where the principles of freedom are abandoned, the constitution no longer serves its constituted purpose; that is, to limit the government as the consent of the governed demanded at its creation. And once the constituted purposes and principles are abandoned, how could it be argued that the constitution has life? Is the form (the constitution) greater than the substance (the principles)? Certainly not.
3. When a government breaches its limitations placed upon it by a constitution, (a) the government agent loses its trust to rule, (b) the powers delegated to it are reverted back to the creators of the constitution, and (c) the constitution becomes non-binding on those who created it. This is the natural law concept of “the consent of the government,” as expressed in our Declaration of Independence. It is further a concept regarding the rights of the parties who enter into a compact. As noted by our founders, we do not normally exercise this natural and compact right over “light and transient causes,” but in cases where a “long train of abuses” are evident. European forefather, Hugo Grotius, recognizes that when a government contradicts the principles that created its power, that creation (i.e. kingdom/constitution) dies and the people have the right to institute new government:
“[I]f the king act, with a really hostile mind, with a new to the destruction of the whole people…that the kingdom is forfeited; for the purpose of governing and the purpose of destroying cannot subsist together.” Hugo Grotius and William Whewell, trans., Hugo Grotius on the Rights of War and Peace, Book II, (Cambridge: University Press, 1853), 57–58.
A constitution that has been continually breached by the government is no longer a constitution at all, because the very purpose of a constitution is to limit the government by the will of the people who created it. Thus, a people who continually live under an abandoned constitution do not live under a constitution at all; but rather, they live in voluntary slavery, and the constitution is dead to those people and that government. It is literally time “to alter or to abolish” that constitution before the people’s lack of resistance is deemed to be “the consent of the governed.” (See, Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 185. “[T]o conquer [the existing constitution’s] will, so as to rest the right on that, the only legitimate basis, requires long acquiescence and cessation of all opposition.”)
4. Particular to the United States, the U.S. Constitution was voluntarily formed as a compact by existing sovereign states with existing state constitutions. See FP 39. Despite the deceptive proposition that the States were created by Congress, the States existed prior to and independent of any Congress, as confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in 1783 (which, by the way, was not overturned by any subsequent legal action of the states). “The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 31. And, “Each State, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.” James Madison, FP 39.
Today, there is a fraudulent notion in America which places the U.S. Constitution above the importance and relevance of the state constitutions and state sovereignty, despite the fact that we were told (in efforts to get us to ratify the U.S. Constitution) that “the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 32. The authoritative advocates of the U.S. Constitution confirm that even with the U.S. Constitution ratified or with the U.S. Constitution dissolved, the states would have their own constitutions to protect freedom and secure the blessings of liberty within that state.
It was even proposed during the 1780s that instead of one confederacy being created through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, several confederacies be ratified instead. See FP 2. So, it cannot be accurately stated that the U.S. Constitution was the sole form of convenience of the states. The U.S. Constitution was in fact an “experiment” of union, which admittedly may not work. James Madison, FP 14. Many notable American patriots, of course, (prophetically and correctly) believed the U.S. Constitution would in time, by constitutional construction, become destructive to the natural rights and sovereignty of the people of the states. Even pro-U.S. Constitution advocates warned us of the tyrannical tendency of central governments and implored the State governments to “afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 28.
Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution no more creates freedom than any other government creates freedom; and that the U.S. Constitution was simply a union of states for very limited purposes, all of which were and can be handled by the states themselves without the existence of the U.S. Constitution or federal government.
5. Constitutions can be destructive to freedom where the document itself is used against the people. Montesquieu expounded upon this, as I cited in, Our Dead Constitution. If you disagree, pray tell, how is it that Congress can regulate virtually anything it desires under the Commerce Clause of the constitution? How can the United States Supreme Court “constitutionally” uphold those unconstitutional acts by its rulings, which are supposedly made impartially “according to the rules of the Constitution” (FP 39)? How can the bill of rights be used against the retained powers and sovereignty of the states, when the U.S. Constitution was never intended to limit the states whatsoever? How can a federation be turned into a nation without the consent of the people? How can the first amendment, designed to restrict the federal government in all regards (“Congress shall make no law…”), be used to not only make law through the federal courts but also restrict individuals and states from exercising their natural rights within their own jurisdictions?
How can the constitutional limitations of the federal courts to apply the Supreme Law of the Land be used to justify “federal supremacy” in un-enumerated powers over the states, contrary to the principles of the constitution? How can the constitution’s general welfare clause be a legal justification to the federal government socializing healthcare, economics, banks, manufacturing, and education, despite the clear intention of the ratifiers to the contrary? How can Congress create a fiat money system without any constitutional power whatsoever to do so? How can the President engage in an eight year war with no declaration from Congress? How can Obama supposedly not be eligible to be President while absolutely no one in the federal system cares? You call that a constitution alive and well!? I could go on and on, as many authors have already well documented for generations now. The long train of abuses is clear: the constitution has been and is being used every day against the freedoms and rights it is supposed to protect and against the principles and trust that created it.
6. Constitutions can be dissolved by those who created it. Our Declaration of Independence confirms this natural right, which is inherent in all sovereigns. The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the voluntary assent of the sovereigns of the states, in their capacity as states. FP 39. The states created the U.S. Constitution not to create freedom, not to create powers they did not already possess individually, and not to create union for union’s sake. They created it for certain benefits that union provided (at that time). If this union were ever destructive to these ends, the states would most certainly have the right to dissolve their part of the union to preserve freedom for that state. (James Madison, FP 39, “dissolution of the compact”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 28, “original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 26, “people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”)
Thus, a political maxim must be admitted: union, through the U.S. Constitution, does not equal freedom and can actually be destructive to freedom. Given the natural laws of sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation and self-government, the States may in fact be better off not to be a part of a union that is causing their demise. More pointedly put, the States may in fact be better off to declare the compact (the U.S. Constitution) or at least, the federal laws creating their demise, null and void within their sovereign borders. Naturally, this sovereign power can come in different forms, through nullification, active resistance to federal usurpations, controlling the mechanisms used against the states, and secession.
Regardless of your agreement with these truths, the information provided is all based upon the natural law and political discussions of those who formed the foundation of our Republic. The fact that we do not understand them only causes tyranny to tighten its grip on us. Before freedom will ever be restored, government will be limited, and the people will govern themselves, the sovereigns of the states must recognize that the U.S. Constitution is not the answer to our political and societal plight. Rather, it is the principles of freedom that provide the answer. The time has come in America when to restore constitutional law and freedom in the STATES, the people of the states must begin looking internally to their own powers, sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation, self-reliance and constitutions.
Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2009.
Sphere: Related Content
8. December 2009 at 6:03 pm
This United States Constitution is being reconstructed as if it were intended to be federally optional.
9. December 2009 at 10:42 am
Most people do not have a grasp of what sort of document the Constitution is in the first place, let alone what it says or does. The closest analogous document is a Corporate Charter. Just as a corporation does not exist until the Charter is adopted by those creating the corporation, the Federal Government does not exist “but for” the Constitution. Just as a corporate charter defines the “business of the business” (airplane sales or toy manufacturing?) a Constitution defines the purpose of the government, and both define the limits of authority granted. If the Constitution doesn’t grant a Power, there is no other source from which it may be LEGITIMATELY derived. Since the Powers under discussion come from the People (how’s the Constitution start?) then it must be comprehensible to the People, not some mysterious document that needs to be explained.
It’s important, but it isn’t complicated.
http://www.knowourconstitution.com
9. December 2009 at 11:28 am
During troubled times,like we are having now,the people need to hear “HOPE”,not accusations that the constitution is dead.There are a huge number of people in our country that are still depending on the constitution to save us.There IS such a thing called “Legislation Nullification”,which many people pray, will eventually come about..with the help of http://.www.thetenthadmendment.com of which I subscribed to just last week.
Tom De Weese wrote a GREAT article[2-3 weeks ago?]about a plan for electing gov`t leaders that made good common sense,of which I emailed to all my friends.[and they agreed with his idea.]
So please..no more about a dead constitution,GIVE US HOPE !
We ALL need to gather as many new ideas [to run our country] as possible.And then,use them to our advantage when the time ripens.
9. December 2009 at 11:43 am
I would argue, that this statement,
“This is what our founders said in the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”” is possibly our downfall, since it opens up a type of democracy(I know we are a constitutional republic) that either was not intended, or was slipped in by such as Alexander Hamilton and his ilk. Would have been better, far better, to state that the “just powers” only come from God and his law. Are not all laws that are enacted by men, that God did not feel fit to proclaim in his word a form of tyranny? Just a thought.
9. December 2009 at 11:45 am
All those persons we the people elected and promised to uphold the constitution should be vetoed out of office. Most are self centered. Let the people speak in 2010 and let the no goods go home.
9. December 2009 at 11:48 am
Thanks, Tim. Many of us are aware that the Constitution is just a piece of paper & doesn’t create or destroy our freedoms. We are responsible for this latter aspect.
The problem in my mind is how to abolish the current treasonous CORPWashDC and implement or restore the Republic (which we were supposed to have).
We have no access to the FED troops or any other govt agency, as all have been purchsed and used by the secret cabals & Banksters to destroy us.
What do you think will be the ultimate act toward our freedom? How can we get the State governors & lawyers/judges to aid us in this respect? Thanks. BB
9. December 2009 at 11:59 am
Dr. Brooks, the only structured and capable powers (that I see) to resist the illegitimate powers of the fed are the state powers. They are sovereign bodies-politic that have all the powers inherent in nationhood.
9. December 2009 at 12:01 pm
Dick, while voting them out of office sounds good, I believe is focusing on the wrong matter altogether. If we are going to vote them all out, they’ll just be replaced by more controlled politicians.
9. December 2009 at 12:03 pm
Georgia, when you cite the 10th amendment as being the tool (which I certainly agree with), you have to acknowledge that the 10th amendment powers used to resist encroaching powers of the federal government will in fact be contrary to the US Constitution as used against us for 150 years. There is HOPE in fact: it is in the PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM.
9. December 2009 at 1:35 pm
The Declaration of Independence referring to “consent of the governed” is not a source of danger to the U.S. That consent came with the ratification of the Constitution, and is limited to its terms. While it has a few provisions I’m not overly fond of (13th and 17th Amendments particularly) it is what it is, and if it were actually followed, I could be content. The whole problem is that politicians use polls, newspaper articles, and their own campaign slogans from a successful campaign to claim a “mandate from the People” as if that were the “consent of the governed”. It is not. Even if it were that, it does not trump the Constitution.
“Don’t re-elect NOBODY”
Georgia, whether the Constitution is “dead” or not depends on whether or not anyone will insist on it. It is intended to bind the government, so it’s naive to expect any part of the government to enforce it. When there aren’t enough people like you and me who will read it and speak out against violations of it, it is indeed “dead.” Have we reached that point? I don’t know, I’m willing to be shown we haven’t.
What do we mean by “hope”? I HOPE the government will nationalize the Beef Industry so I can have free hamburgers, at least until cattle are extinct? Or I HOPE the government will leave me the hell alone to live my life and secure my future according to my own ability, without government requirements or restrictions?
Read the original Constitution yourself. You will find that there were NO requirements or limits placed on individuals, with the exception of minimum ages to hold certain offices. It was intended to be a government that the ordinary citizen never came in contact with in their entire lives except by choice.
You don’t get “hope” from the government, all you can get is dependency.
9. December 2009 at 1:40 pm
Mr Baldwin Hi and thanks for your good work. I voted for you for President because i believe you do generally understand the problems. I have just now become aware of your web site as I was sent the article you wrote entitled ” WHAT IS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION”
I am willing to share what i have with you and your followers. I am a God fearing “Latter Day Saint” (Mormon). I have a web site dedicated to the Constitution from that perspective. http://www.inspiredconstitution.com You are welcome to link to it if you wish. On a different note. As far as possible political solutions and approaches to the countries money problems that is indeed involving the States. I would like to share a link to a document from Nevada some years ago. Their legislature was considering what i feel is a legitimate remedy that deals with the money problem from the State’s rights perspective. A brilliant legal mind named T. David Horton presented the position of the States issuing their own money and here is the link to a letter and an OPEN letter to the legal basis for the purposed bill.
http://www.nevadafullstatehood.com/jun182003.htm
Please look into this and see if this is an approach you can understand and appreciate and possibly would be willing to promote. I may not be able to follow this blog but if you wish to contact me I will be pleased to respond where I can.
Mike Aldana
9. December 2009 at 1:43 pm
Mike, thank you for your comments. State sovereignty and using their powers are crucial to freedom, more than ever. One correction: I did not run for President. That was my dad, Chuck Baldwin.
9. December 2009 at 3:38 pm
I am very grateful for yours and others’ inquiring minds looking for answers to the messes that America is up to its ears in. I pray for Divine Inspiration and Guidance for the Divine Solutions to all the problems of America and the world. I know that the answers are forthcoming, if not already implanted, in the minds of God-Loving individuals. I am grateful for your and others’ leadership in the cause and quest of FREEDOM. I believe in “miracles”, I pray for “miracles” and I know that we are receiving “miracles”. I know that as we ask, we receive. There is great hope in my heart and soul. I am actually grateful for all the opposition of the Satanic dark forces because as we are tested and tried we become stronger and more assured and confident of Almighty God’s Power and Protection and more acquainted with His Almighty Ways. About 19 years ago, I became quite shocked and grieved at all the evil in this world. I felt a very Powerful Presence in the room and I heard God’s Voice, “Just hold on a little while longer, Jennie, soon everyone is going to know My Power”. I also remember a saying that I once heard, “Work like everything depends on you and pray as if everything depends on God”. I am very thankful that you and many others are doing just that.
We are truly co-creators with God. He put us in charge (dominion) of this planet. We could choose to turn it into either a heaven or a hell. Many are trying very hard to turn it into hell on earth. While many are trying very hard to turn earth into God’s Kingdom come. The ones on God’s team have an overwhelming advantage-the Power of Almighty God. Even though dark forces may appear to be the more powerful, they are definitely not. It often appears to me that after we have done everything that we can possibly do as humans, the Divine steps in and saves the day.
I am grateful that Victory is coming soon. I realize that Victory is nigh as I see more and more people waking up and wising up in this battle of good and evil. Thank you for waking people up and wising people up.
9. December 2009 at 4:36 pm
We can vote, write, give speeches and have have rallies and NOTHING is going to change!!!
Those who wrote the Constitution were willing to back up every word with a rifle. Americans today aren’t willing to back anything up. The politicians know this and will continue to run roughshod.
The words on that precious document called the Constitution were given meaning and substance not because someone said so. They were given meaning when men and women picked up a rifle and were will to die to defend those words!!
Can we get past “State’s Rights” too? Do you really believe that someone is going to ride in on their white horse and tell the Feds to take a hike??? State gub’mints are scared to death of the Feds. The Feds know this too. Some states have flexed their chests but that action will never go anywhere. The States are controlled by their own brand of usurpers, traitors and cowards.
Our Constitution is only going to be restored by those who are willing to die. We do not have “years” to complete this restoration.
Mr. Baldwin, are you willing to take the same stand as our Founding Fathers????
9. December 2009 at 5:08 pm
The United States Constitution was originally, I believe, not intended to destroy this republic, but to help preserve it.
Far to many safeguards that were originally emplaced, to prevent this, have been eroded by this federal government and its unrelenting efforts to misguide the people into believing that a constitutional republic can be done without.
9. December 2009 at 8:03 pm
Great article, Tim. Read it on NWV this morning and passed it on to friends. Keep it up!
9. December 2009 at 9:39 pm
While I would, personally, FAR rather that our Constitutional Republic be restored PEACEFULLY, by the BALLOT (as would, undoubtedly, Brother Aldana, my co-religionist), I also suspect that the TREASONOUS crowd who is presently running the “District of Criminals”, INCLUDING our Constitutionally ILLEGITIMATE, “non-citizen”, “Usurper-in-Chief” in the White House, will NOT, voluntarily, discontinue their efforts to DESTROY the Constitutional Rights of the American Citizens! In short, they will NOT “cease and desist” WITHOUT the American Citizens having to resolve to “…a resort to arms…”.
For instance, it could easily be that, should it appear that the American People are about to “through the rascals out”, BOTH Republican AND Demorat, that those attempting to DESTROY the US Government, will simply call the 2010 Election OFF, and resolve to use some new TERRORIST incident to SUSPEND the Constitution and rivet the chains of slavery about our necks, or else, STEAL the Election through VOTE FRAUD, using the electronic voting system they have insisted on in the past few years, DESPITE the testimony of experts that it is too easy to execute FRAUDULENT elections through the use of such electronic means! In either of these eventualities, the American People will be faced with an “either / or” choice: either to “resort to arms and an Appeal to the God of Heaven” for the preservation of their Constitutional Rights, or to supinely surrender to the imposition of slavery upon them!
YOUR CHOICE!
9. December 2009 at 11:19 pm
If the supreme Court makes decisions purely on the basis of law, then why are so many decisions (opinions) 5-4, 6-3, 7-2 etc? Their opinions are more political than they are legal. Keep in mind that they are all just people like the rest of us and have no special understanding of life or science. We expect them to know more about law, but that is it. Also, keep in mind that the Court does not control any police force or army. They are dependent on all of us voluntarily doing what they want. Quite a principle.
jimhollingsworth@verizon.net
10. December 2009 at 8:30 am
Good one Jim, lol
10. December 2009 at 1:17 pm
To the two Jim’s.
The position the States need to take is to “force” the U.S. Congress to deal with the money issue as the purposed legislation directs. Please look the link over provided above if you wish to understand how the States might be able to bring the pressure on them. Something like this Nevada bill should be (the States) first proper legislative approach to dealing with them and it uses the lawful remedy the founders gave to the people. There are other remedies but this we can discuss later. The money power has usurped the Legislative, judicial and executive branches of government and enslaved them and all of us as individuals. The 50 State legislatures can stand up to them(the Congress) and check the usurpation if we help them (our legislators) and bring this to there attention. Short of this we will have to sue for redress and i don’t think that is a wise way to deal with them and it is to futile.
Mike
11. December 2009 at 1:10 am
Our best hope is to elect a presiden that recognizes that The United States Government is in Breach of Contract with the States and sends a petition to the States to annul all legislation authorizing unconstitutional activities by the Federal Government. A list of what stays vs what goes would be seem to be a more efficient approach. I am investigating this plan and others to better understand the tools available to the president.
20. December 2009 at 2:05 am
Mr. B is correct, there is an actual democracy existing in Wash. D.C. alright. It is 51% of the U.S. Congress voting on one side of an issue. Remember, that the U.S. Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over D.C., possessions, territories and enclaves.
1. February 2010 at 1:48 am
Tim, I am very happy to say that the Baton Rouge Tea Party is learning about the Constitution. check out this instructional video. http://www.batonrougeteaparty.net/Default.aspx Thanks, Mark.
26. April 2010 at 8:22 am
my thoughts are that the above commentees would do far more good than any in congress. i would agree that enough states or the military in combination could reverse the lack of rule by the supreme law of the land. wishing or waiting will not cut the mustard.what is needed is a complete house cleaning ,those in power judged and if their deeds warrant it a state funeral. replace a few amendments with term limits. might add the 10 commandments as? brsargent@basicisp.net history has proven that mans government is 2nd best and not sustainable.