Everyone Defies Laws

by Timothy Baldwin

In response to my one of my articles, “Hope for Financial Freedom,” I had a concerned American citizen correspond with me about the subject. He asked me a few questions which I feel are important enough to address publicly, because undoubtedly, there are many similar-thinking Americans who perhaps have not thought this fully through. Before I state the questions, let me explain why the questions were asked in the first place. As many American patriots are now advocating, the only viable way to resist federal tyranny is through the active sovereign powers of the States. This necessarily means, as I have explained for months, that the States must use the powers given to them by their sovereigns (the people)–and retained to them in the tenth amendment of the US Constitution–to pass laws which actively nullify, negate or refute unconstitutional federal laws and taxation within the sovereign borders of those States. Some people are looking at this scenario and asking what this gentleman asked me, as follows:

“[Do you advocate for the States to do this] even if this means defying federal law?–even if it means war? Why do you want to chart a path that leads to an outcome that you cannot win? For defiance of federal law and war are losing propositions.”

To these questions, I unashamedly respond as follows:

I ask to you, do you propose that we submit to unconstitutional usurpations by the federal government upon our God-given natural rights, state retained powers and constitutional-republic securities? Shortly put, that submission is slavery. Do you propose that we accept the form of government forced upon us in 2009 which the state ratifiers expressly rejected in 1787? That shocks the conscience (not to mention our forefathers’) as reprehensible and cowardice. The problem is, many of the states are scared of the federal government, even with the knowledge that the federal government is illegitimate, has usurped state powers and has no good will to comply with its limitations in the US Constitution and with the principles requisite to maintain a constitutional federal republic–much less, to comply with the laws of nature and nature’s God as expressed by our founders. Lines in the sand will eventually be drawn: freedom requires it.

I do not want violent revolution any more than a 90 year old great-grandmother would, or a soon-to-be first-time mother would, or a father would who has three wonderful children who have yet to grow up, or a child would who enjoys the companionship of his friends. It is the natural desire of man to live in peace. Unfortunately, peace is a luxury given only to those societies whose government complies with its bounds. So, who decides that the question of revolution be considered?–us or them? Is the decision pressed to be made by those who want freedom and who just desire that the government limit its actions to the confines of a constitution; or is it made by those, in total disregard of the principles of free constitutional federal republics, encroaching the trusts and rights of the people of the states–those sovereigns who formed this union and ratified the US Constitution? Who is the aggressor?–the citizen who desires peace and the rule of law, or the usurper whose actions can only be described as tyrannical and despotic? Our conscience confirms the answer. The real question is, who is willing to use the principles, character and nature of constitutional government which the States formed in 1787 to resist tyranny and to secure freedom for them and their posterity.

Federal law is not God’s law. Federal law is not even the Supreme Law of the Land. The only Supreme Law of the Land (to this date) is those laws that are passed pursuant to the constitution—and by constitution, this means not only the US Constitution, but also the State constitutions. Our founders stated emphatically: unconstitutional laws are null and void and have no effect.

Where the federal government assumes power that was given to the state governments by the people of those States, should the States sit back passively and let unconstitutional federal laws dictate to the state governments and to the people what they will do or not do? Any State willing to shirk the trust placed into their hands by the people is as guilty of treason as those federal tyrants who have trampled on those protections, powers and rights. State response should be in direct proportion to federal encroachments. Without this formula actively used, the tyrant always prevails.

You speak of defiance. This is true, for everyone defies laws. The only question is, which laws are you going to defy: constitutional laws or unconstitutional laws. If you choose to submit to unconstitutional laws, you defy the Supreme Law of the Land found in the US Constitution and the State constitutions. If our federal government decides to declare war on the states who choose to live in freedom, then so be it. As for “winning,” the colonists were never supposed to win the war in 1776 either. Thankfully, they believed that “duty is ours; and results are God’s.” In the end, we should let God in heaven be the judge of our actions here on earth. I, for one, choose freedom over slavery, even if that means defying federal laws.

Sphere: Related Content

Print
, ,

45 Responses to “Everyone Defies Laws”

  1. Timothy_Baldwin Says:

    Jahn,

    “Sharing responsibilities” does not address the issue: what form of government does the union comprise? The question is not “shared responsibilities” (we all know that and such was commonly understood for centuries in all republics) but supreme sovereignty, which can only be found in the people of the states (not the legislatures of the states of federal government). It was these sovereigns who ratified the constitution as STATES, the sovereign body-politic of that governing entity. The US Constitution did not place supreme sovereignty over the states, and therein lies the problem: many people are deceived into thinking that the states (the people of the states as sovereign bodies-politic) are subject to the will of the federal government. That is simply incorrect, and from that, all notions that secession is “rubbish” or otherwise are simply and utterly founded on false presumptions.

    If the states have no power to protect their own powers through their state constitutions by virtue of the federal government having supreme sovereignty over the state powers, then indeed the US is a national government, regardless of the supposed “shared responsibilities”. States are mere counties of the centralized head. On the other hand, if the states have the power to protect and execute their powers regardless of federal definition of these powers, then it is a federal form and true check and balance against federal tyranny. The creation of a federal government existed in the Articles of Confederation. The US Constitution did not create anything new. It only changed the methods in which the federal government operated. In all regards, the goals, nature, character and form of the federal government was the same in the US Constitution as it was in the Articles of Confederation. James Madison admitted this in the federalist papers, just as Alexander Hamilton admitted that the states had the power to protect their sovereignty from federal intrusion–both despite their inclinations towards a national form of government and their propagandizing of the same in the federalist papers.

    To suggest that the states (through their agents: the state governments) do not have the power to defend the powers that they retained in the 10th amendment (which is of course confirmed in the 2nd amendment) except through the federal process (voting, amendments, US S CT, etc.) insults, contradicts and ignores all of the elements of what makes a state sovereign and what limits the federal government. The states retained the vast majority of government activities, as admitted by the federalist paper writers, who were the strongest of nationalists during their day.

    As a provable maxim of political thought, sovereignty can never be relinquished except through expressed consent. The US Constitution ratifiers believed in this so much that they confirmed this in the 10th amendment and would not have ratified the constitution were it not for this understanding. Moreover, no where does the US Constitution remove this sovereignty from the States, but it is confirmed, just as it was in the Articles of Confederation. What kind of a “genius” system would our founders have created should 1/4 of the states suffer the evils of unconstitutional laws? What kind of “genius” is in a system whereby the federal government has peremptory power over the states: that is exactly what they seceded from in 1776.

    The states having to “create new structures for purposes of constitutional review” does not take into consideration that each state has the power and right to judge for that state when freedom is being threatened and when lines are crossed in that regard. This is confirmed throughout America’s freedom documents. The colonies fought a bloody 7 year war to gain their independence, and to deny them the sovereignty they fought for, won and never gave up is to do severe injustice to American ideals of freedom. Our country was born in the notions of self-government, secession from tyranny, and the consent of the governed. You call that “rubbish”?!

    The states must in fact do things legally–not as defined by the federal process, but as defined by the laws of God, just as the birth certificate of the US states in the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution does not protect freedom when it used against freedom and to further enslave the people of the states.

  2. Jahn Petrovsky Says:

    You can assert that the Constitution was ratified by the states as much as you wish. The fact is that it was ratified by specially composed ratifying conventions, not the states per se.

    Of course the federal government is sovereign over the states. The Constitution plainly says that is the case in Article VI par 2:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    If you don’t like that, then you must admit that you don’t like the Constitution. But don’t argue that the states have the constitutional right to ignore federal laws, because they do not. Your criterion of express consent for the abdication of ultimate sovereignty has been met.

    If the Constitution was simply ‘Articles of Confederation part II’ there would have been no need for it. But the war of independence demonstrated that the federal power conceived by it was weak and ineffective, thus it was discarded. The stronger federal power is what the American people in their respective states desired, and that is what they got.

    If the people of the states want a different government, the Constitution affords them the option of procuring one through amendment or through a new convention. Why you should think this is analogous to the situation in which the colonists were unable to obtain redress from the King, I cannot imagine.

    They could not vote out the King. They could not vote in new members of Parliament. They could not amend the basis of government of the British Empire, because there is no basis for it except the will of Parliament. With our Constitution, the people can change any law that they wish through their elected representatives. But to say that any state can unlaterally ignore federal law is not only unconstitutional, it is absurd.

    The principle of republicanism is that we are governed through our elected representatives. To say any state can unilaterally interpret the Constitution is as absurd and lawless as saying any single citizen can be a law unto himself.

    Early in American history it was recognized that the states, federal gov’t, and individuals needed an umpire, and all agreed when the Supreme Ct asserted that it was itself that umpire. That means that the umpire himself has very little check on his power. But since ultimate sovereignty remains in the people of the states, it does have a check on its power which is very final indeed. This check is available without recourse to armed rebellion (which would be unconstitutional) or passing laws which plainly ignore Supreme Court precedent (which is also unconstitutional). And it can actually work.

    There is no question that the states have become weaker in part because of federal supremacy. (Do you think the people of the states don’t want the federal government to have supremacy over the states? If you think the states should be under the Articles again, then you should argue for that, but that is not the arrangement of the Constitution.) That’s why the people need to be explicit about what powers they do not want the fed to have. It doesn’t do to stand on the 10th amendment when the constitutionally enumerated federal powers are always able to be interpreted broadly by the Supreme umpire. We need to tell the court through constitutional amendment exactly how those powers are to be limited, and even to list which powers that the states have retained, if we are to restore power to the states. This option is open to us, as it was not in 1776, so this regime is legitimately founded on the people. If the people do nothing, that indicates that this is the government that they want. But since that avenue is open to us, we are obliged by natural law, decency, and prudence, to take it.

  3. Timothy_Baldwin Says:

    Wow! The ignorance runs deep as to the true character and nature of the union! It is almost hard to believe, except that I remember how I was once deceived myself when I was being indoctrinated in upper education. Thankfully, I studied for myself and was enlightened as to the true principles which formed our country. You too can be so enlightened and spread freedom across these states. Your posterity will thank you.

    The assumptions and premises expressed for the nationalist system demonstrate the most serious flaws of political reasoning, which revolutionized this country from 1776 onward. How can one argue with those who believe completely contrary to historical and philosophical fact and who choose to accept the Lincoln and post-Lincoln version of our union? Even Lincoln himself admitted in his personal diary that the union was a union of the states and that the Civil War was to change it from that to a union of people: it had to be changed to give the federal government the nationalistic power it now has today–the power that most of us are complaining is corrupt, abused and usurped…well,duh! But we do not need Lincoln’s statements to confirm what the true nature and character of our union was: all of the delegation and ratification documents and constitutional convention notes prove this, as does every aspect of the provisions and principles of the US Constitution: nothing on the federal level could be done without the involvement of the states.

    If the union was formed by the people and the states had nothing to do with it, how then can the states amend the constitution without the approval of the people–the supposed consolidated body-politic that formed the union? If the states did not form it, then they certainly cannot change it. If the states did not ratify the constitution as states, then why did the US Constitution itself declare that 9 states would be required to ratify the constitution?–with each state having its own authority within its own state sovereignty to ratify the constitution or not, regardless of population, location, other states, or any other external factor. The representatives in Congress were to be selected within the states, with the state legislatures being directly represented in Congress. The President was to be elected by state electors chosen by the state legislatures. No treaties were to be ratified without the approval of the Senate (that is, the state legislatures’ representatives). State militias were recognized as being necessary to secure a FREE STATE–not a free mass of people. The jurisdiction of the states was left intact except for those very limited areas of special powers granted by the state sovereigns as states. The concurrent powers of the state and federal government were admitted by the federalist paper writers, wherein they observe that each sovereign has the power to defend its own powers, as all sovereigns do. The enumerated goals of the federal government in the US Constitution were essentially identical to those in the Articles of Confederation. The states retained their sovereignty in the US Constitution just as they did in the Articles.

    The “Supremacy clause” in the US Constitution expressly says that only those laws that are passed “pursuant to” (i.o.w., in compliance with) the constitution would be the supreme law of the land. All other laws were not binding on the states, no matter what the federal government says about it. Comparing states to individuals is absurd in this regard: an individual does not have the sanction of a body-politic, as a state does. However, even assuming the analogy, it is rightly described: to say that the federal government can define its own powers through the non-elected body of 9 people, is to say that an individual has the right to define what is law for himself, regardless of other individuals. What binds the states regarding their ability to “define their powers” necessarily applies to the federal government. There is not one implication that can be made to even suggest that the federal government is exempted from the same standard as you are imposing on the states.

    To claim that the federal government has a supremacy to declare to the states what the constitution is and means and applies to epitomizes the national form of government which our founders rejected even in the constitutional convention in 1787–not to mention the ratifiers who rejected this form expressly in their delegation and ratification documents–the conventions for which were all authorized by the state legislatures and could have been revoked by the legislature at any time, if they so desired. There was not even an “American people” as composing a body-politic to create a constitution, to the exclusion of state sovereignty. Never had the people of the states consolidated themselves to form a body-politic to create a national form of government. The US Constitution confirms this expressly, implicitly and by necessity. Since the US Constitution was not formed by an aggregate body-politic of an “American people”, as admitted by James Madison (FP 39), the union is in fact a FEDERAL union of states, and not national union of people.

    The fact that the nationalists won the Civil War in 1865 does not defeat these principles, facts and intentions of our founding generation. If anything, this war confirms these principles. Even Daniel Webster, the most ardent and well-known of all nationalists in the 1800’s, admitted that the crux of the nationalist’ position was the “Supremacy clause” which Jahn uses to prove this same point. However, Daniel Webster later admits in the 1850s that this argument rested on false premises and assumptions and actually argued for the right of the states to secede from the union.

    This supremacy clause was in fact the same supremacy clause the articles of confederation had: “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” (Article 8). If anything, this supremacy clause is MORE stringent against the states than the one in the US Constitution: the supremacy clause in the Articles of Confederation states that the Articles shall be INVIOLABLY observed, meaning that they cannot in any way be violated by the states. These supremacy clauses were merely truisms–an understood political maxim that laws passed pursuant to (or in compliance with) a constitution will be binding on the parties who agreed to be bound. However, this has nothing to do with a sovereign party’s ability to judge the actions of the other party to ensure that the contract is being followed. This is confirmed in the Law of Nations as described by those great thinkers of yesteryear–those great minds that shaped the very notions of sovereignty in the US.

    Alexander Hamilton admits throughout the federalist papers, as does James Madison, that the union was formed by states, as states, and that the states have the sovereign right to defend their powers. There is in fact a major difference between an action at law to be decided by a court and an action in politics to be decided by sovereigns. The US S CT itself admits this: courts cannot made determinations of matters involving political power of sovereigns. Have you ever heard of the court determining that the executive branch of the federal government not have the power to determine whether a treaty with a foreign country has been followed? No, because courts do not have the power to interpose questions of political sovereignty. Cases at law may be opined by a judge, but they have no bearing on the party at hand where the party at hand has the sovereign power to defend the political rights and powers of that sovereign entity.

    I could go on and on, but the readers do not need to be confused about this matter. The nationalists have had a hay-day since 1865, but their days are numbered. The “Supremacy clause” is their linchpin, but that doctrine is nothing more than subterfuge, attempting to destroy through constitutional construction by the federal government the state powers which keep the federal government in check from tyranny.

    I pray to God that the people would ardently study our history, the principles of the declaration of independence, Treaty of Paris, Articles of Confederation and US Constitution, and the great minds of political doctrine, so that there will once again be an awakening of freedom in throughout these states.

  4. John McClain, GySgt, USMC, Vanceboro, NC Says:

    While all the debate is fascinating, the fact the States remain “Sovereign”, as accorded by the tenth Amendment, and “The People” remain “Sovereign”, as accorded by the ninth amendment, it should be clear and unequivocal, that both the States, and The People have the right, and in fact, a duty to ignore and throw down such federal legislation which is not specifically authorized in the federal Constitution, and by the same token, The People, of “The Several States”, retain the right and ultimately, the duty to ignore and indeed fight to remove such legislation which violates the State Constitutions.
    Both of these issues are not so much Constitutional issues, as issues of political nature, and the actual fealty which is given by elected officials, whether to their actual oaths of office, and to the Constitutions, respectively, or to party politics, political expedience, or other un-lawful and un-Constitutional purposes, which would be cause for their being ignored and properly removed from “the body of law”.
    The entire principle our form of government rests upon, is natural law, and its facts, known as “self evident truths”. These things are “first principles”, and thus trump all law which is written by man, and in any way, abrogates any principle supported by self evident truth and thus “natural law”.
    We are “endowed with certain, unalienable rights”, because we are all born in the same manner, with absolute equality, that without the care and succor of our parents leads to unquestionable death, on an absolutely equal basis.
    Our government was formed in a parallel manner, based on this principle, and the principle that without the existence of people, there can be no existence of government, therefore by self evident truth, the people provide for the existence of government, and thus they also have every right and power to alter or abolish it.
    No matter what else, “We, The People” always retain the right to alter or abolish our government, and since we have allowed it to govern solely by our consent, it is an individual consent that maintains the legitimacy of government, not a collective consent.
    Just as any agreement between people can be altered by any of those who have participated, without having to have either a majority consensus, nor a total consensus, so to can governments be altered and rejected by minority action of withdrawing consent, and choosing an alternatative.
    Remember, “governments are formed to secure our rights, and that is their only legitimate purpose. They are formed not to secure group rights, or State’s rights, but only the only rights which we find exist according to our principles: individual rights, therefore it is the individual who must consent, for government to be legitimate.
    Yes, the absence of conformity in deciding what to do opens the door to anarchy, and to vast questions, and indeed, puts the Nation and the States at risk, however, cleaving to principle is the only legitimate way to form a legitimate government within “natural law”, and as long as that is our founding principle, we must assume that risk, and accept the individual as the decision maker in all matters of government.
    The rights upon which all our governments rest are entirely individual, as there are no such things as “natural collective rights”, because “collectivisation” is not natural, but a man made concept, and therefore is not secured under “natural law”.
    It is the Declaration of Independence which declares the foundation upon which our governments will rest upon, and it is in this document that individual rights are declared that solid foundation, and no other. If we ignore this, we have no foundation but that which is erected on power, and who wields it at the moment. We either base our government and our laws on unalienable rights, or we base it on the constructed rules of man, as is seen fit at the moment, as every other Nation in history did, both before our own establishment, and after it. There is nothing in between natural rights, and man constructed rules except self evident truths, and whether people have the will to stand upon those truths and declare them inviolable, with the will and determination to defend this declaration.
    All the institutions erected, whether it be congress, the executive branch, or the supreme court, are man’s constructs based on his understanding and feelings regarding self evident truths. Those who hold principle first have made us a Constitution, it has always been under attack by those who will question self evident truths for the purpose of garnering power. For this reason, no entity has the absolute authority to act as final arbiter, but we must all be willing to reduce all arguments made to the lowest common denominator, and determine our understanding by putting this finding before the truths we are founded upon, and this will establish whether something is right or wrong, without question.
    John McClain
    GySgt, USMC, ret.
    Vanceboro, NC

  5. Jahn Petrovsky Says:

    I will continue to study, as you suggest. So far, I am not convinced of the foundation of your opinions.

    Much of what you say here is an argument against the straw man that the Constitution was ratified by one people. But I didn’t assert that. I said that it was ratified by the people of the states, not the people of America as a whole. That is why the states can amend the Constitution, in answer to your question. Furthermore, the original Constitution gave the states more power than the Constitution has given them since the 17th amendment took away the ability of state legislatures to choose their federal senators (not their district representatives.) Why shouldn’t the people of the states ratify a Constitution which gives a certain amount of power to their state legislatures? That is exactly what the ratifying conventions judged to be the correct balance of state and federal power. Just because the people of the states judged that the state legislatures should be empowered under certain circumstances to amend the Constitution does not mean that therefore the states are actually the bodies that ratified the Constitution. You are arguing cart-before-horse. Just because the Constitution gives power to the states doesn’t mean that the states ratified the Constitution directly. Therefore they do not have the power to secede either.

    Please show me in the supremacy clause where exactly it says that the states have the right to determine which laws are constitutional and which were not. The clause says that the Constitution and federal laws are binding notwithstanding anything in the laws of any states. This construction expressly limits state power, but somehow you read into it an implied delegation of state power. I think that your reading is implausible on the face. Nor is there any verbiage anywhere in the Constitution that says that the states have the legal authority to interpret the Constitution. You are conflating the legal authority of our system with the authority of natural law.

    The states arguably had the right to secede when they were indeed by right free and independent states, if they determined that, as a whole, the Constitution was being misinterpreted. That is what Hamilton meant. He did not mean that the states are the interpreters of the Constitution in the daily power struggle between states and federal government. Deciding those internecine disputes is the Court’s job.

    That brings me to your assertion that the federal government is just as much restricted by the Constitution as the states are. Of course that is true, as applied to Congress and the executive. The court often restricts those branches of government’s attempts to act in an unconstitutional manner in respect to the states or the people. So why do you allege that I am asserting that the federal government has the right to define the scope of its own power independently of the Constitution?

    This seems to be one of your recurring themes: that the court and the other branches of the federal government are acting in a conspiracy to take away states’ and individual rights. That is simply untrue. The court strikes down executive and congressional actions from time to time.

    However, it is true that the court is unchecked by the states and the other federal branches in its ability to interpret the Constitution. The proper response to this state of things, if we are unhappy with the Court’s interpretations, is to amend the Constitution to take power away from the Court, or to define the Constitution more explicitly so that the Court cannot interpret it in a manner we don’t like. The improper response, from a legal perspective, is secession.

    I believe that, if the states were truly independent entities according to natural law at present, secession would by justifiable from an extra-legal Hamiltonian perspective. But they are clearly no longer by right free and independent states, nor have they any will to be, nor does any majority of people in any state want them to be. Therefore they are not. We should therefore use the legal means available to strengthen them so that they might be in such a position of actually being by right free and independent states, if circumstances should require that they ought to secede extra-legally.

  6. Robert Gairing, Ph.D. Says:

    Sir,
    “Everyone…” may be your best to date!!! I suggested you as the next Constitution Party candidate on the survey provided. You embrace the Constitution knowledgeably like Ron Paul, but in lieu of Libertarian trappings you substitute Christian ones. I am so glad that you have come forward! Robert

  7. Robert Gairing, Ph.D. Says:

    Sir,

    This article may be your best to date! I suggested you as the next Constitution Party candidate on the survey provided. You embrace the Constitution knowledgeably like Ron Paul, but in lieu of Libertarian trappings you substitute Christian ones. I am so glad that you have come forward! Robert

  8. Timothy_Baldwin Says:

    John Taylor eloquently wrote books on this subject and made the following conclusion in his book, “A New View of the Constitution” (1823), after firmly proving the rights and powers of the sovereign states in the union by virtue of legal, philosophical and political maxims derived from those who shaped American thought in 1776:

    “[t]he declaration of independence was never repealed. Its annual commemorations demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, a publick opinion, that it still lives; and the constitution did not confer sovereignty and independence upon the federal government, as the declaration of independence had done upon the states. On the contrary, by the constitution, the states may take away all the powers of the federal government, whilst that government is prohibited from taking away a single power reserved to the states.

    “Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could not have reserved any rights by the articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation.”

  9. Jahn Petrovsky Says:

    For a modern-day example of how a confederation works, see the following story:

    http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1541/pub_detail.asp

    The United States under the Constitution have never functioned in this way.

    Of course the states may take away the power of the federal government in the Constitution–through the amendment process; but as to annihilation of the federal government, that would take the action of states which are truly and by right free and independent. A description of the states as being “truly and by right free and independent” no longer befits the individual states of this Union.

  10. Timothy_Baldwin Says:

    For a modern-day example of how a confederation works, look at the US Constitution.

    You admit that the states at the very least previously held this sovereign power in 1787, but that this power has been taken away or given up somehow over time through constitutional (de)construction by the US S CT, civil war, failure to pass constitutional amendments, not being “fit” for sovereignty, etc. You admit that the states have the power to take away the power of the federal government as the constitution says they can, but that those same states are not “truly and by right free and independent” because of those considerations above.

    This shows your disgust for our true federal system and your admiration for a national form, which was rejected in 1787, as clearly seen in the constitutional convention debates. So much for the constitution being ratified for their “posterity”! There is no such thing as a constitution where its meaning changes over time. Our founding generation fought a war on this truth in 1776. You dare not argue that the federal government’s power can increase and the state governments’ power decrease except through the lawful means required by Law of Nations and the constitution, do you? If you do, I realize that you are an enemy to freedom. As you will see below, even those national-advocates (Hamilton and Madison) admit that a political formula for maintaining freedom is for one side of the equation to increase with the other side’s increase. This is natural law 101 relative to maintaining freedom in a constitutional republic.

    The States will in fact make this issue become known in the near future by forcing the federal government to acknowledge what political position it holds in this regard, whether you like it or not. People will have to choose sides, and I look forward to the day when the states will have to choose whether they want to live under the principles of a federal form verses national form once again. This ideological struggle is killing freedom today. Since sovereignty cannot be taken except through expressed consent and no right can come by conquest, the states that chose the principles of federalism will be putting the federal government on notice and on demand of their intent and purposes so that the states can act accordingly. No more guess work involved, which always favors tyrants.

    You claim that the states MUST go through an amendment process to “reel in” the federal government. This provides no security whatsoever. The constitution itself was written to expressly limit the federal government’s powers, such that they had only “special” powers, and the states had all powers residual, without need of expressing this in the US Constitution. So what if constitutional amendments were passed? Does that secure the rights of the minority of the states? Does that protect the states against the federal judiciary doing the same thing that it did with the US Constitution? Does it protect the states from the same encroachment by Lincoln and his army? Does it provide protection for the immediate usurpation of the federal government where an amendment is not adhered to by the federal government or is deconstructed by that supreme sovereign you claim has the power to define state powers—the federal judiciary?

    If the federal government openly holds the position that you state, that being free and independent states does not “befit” them, then we will see that they have no good will towards the principles of a federal constitutional republic and will proclaim their unjust acts of war against sovereign states.

    It is funny that you claim the ONLY way the states can exercise any sovereign power is through the constitutional amendment process, when the Federalist Paper writers (again, those national-form-of-government-loving proponents) admitted that there is not a sufficient enough oversight in the people of the states to ensure that the federal government does not usurp its powers and encroach upon the states’ powers, despite there being a written constitution to “protect freedom.” Thus, they admit that since the US has a “complex confederacy” in the US Constitution, the state governments would be able to check the federal government through the use of their sovereign powers in their state constitutions (to list a few):

    Federalist Paper 49: “Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these [federal] departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment [constitutional] barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?…[E]xperience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government…The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.”

    Federalist Paper 51: “TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places…

    “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority — that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States…[T]he stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased.”

    Federalist Paper 52: “[The] federal legislature will not only be restrained by its dependence on its people, as other legislative bodies are, but that it will be, moreover, watched and controlled by the several collateral [state] legislatures…With less power, therefore, to abuse, the federal representatives can be less tempted on one side, and will be doubly watched on the other.”

    Madison and Hamilton, those nationalist advocates who proposed a supreme power of the national legislatures (Hamilton’s proposal) or the national judiciary (Madison’s proposal, originating from Randolph), which were of course rejected in the convention, try to argue their own interpolate versions of federal supremacy over the states through the legislature or the judiciary. However, even while they sneakily interject those rejected doctrines, they cannot refrain from admitting the true principle of a federal system:

    Federalist Paper 39: “[T]he [state] authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the [federal] authority, than the [federal] authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”

    As John Taylor noted in 1823, “How can any inviolable sovereign state jurisdiction exist, if it is subject to a federal or national judicial supremacy?” You argue that the federal court has the ultimate sovereign decision of determining what the states’ powers are, without the states expressed consent, and without regard to the limitations already delineated in the constitution: you argue what Madison argue in the 1780s (which position Madison recanted later during his political career in the 1800s), and you contradict what Hamilton proposed, that such supremacy was in the national legislature, subject only to the control of the people who elect them.

    Pray tell, how can one part (the judiciary) of the whole (the federal government) have the power that the whole was denied? In other words, since Madison claims that the state governments are supreme in their sphere of power granted by the people and that they are no more subject to the whole federal government than the federal government would be subject to the control of the states regarding their sphere, how then can one part of the federal government (judiciary) have a power than the legislature and executive are completely and absolutely denied?–a body made up of (now) 9 appointed men, who are not accountable to the people’s will whatsoever, violating all principles of self-government, republicanism and democracy!

    These nationalistic proposals were rejected in the constitutional conventions, were expressly rejected in the states’ delegation instructions and ratification documents. These positions are disingenuous and create a national supremacy in one department out of the three which make up the federal government. This is completely contrary to the principles expressed throughout all of America’s freedom documents, by those national-proponents themselves (Madison and Hamilton) in the federalist papers and by all of the states who ratified the US Constitution with the understanding of the federal form of government which they in no wise wanted to depart from just 8 years after having established their previous constitution in 1781–a form of government that Madison and Hamilton admitted we would still have in the US Constitution, despite their desire (at that time) to make the US a nation, when it was a federation.

    The States most certainly retained those sovereign powers that you would deny them, had you the power to do so, and they can certainly annihilate the current federal government if they so choose–even under your presumptive “befit” or “unfit status” description of them. Why? Because they are sovereign states, containing people who are sovereign bodies-politic with paramount authority to determine whether the constitution they ratified is being followed. They created the state constitutions, giving those state governments powers to protect the vast array of social and political concerns. They did not give the federal government this power at all. These state governments have the power to protect those obligations. To suggest or imply that they do not is to deny them any sovereignty at all. The sovereigns of those states will live with the consequences of their decisions. Regardless, it is their sole, unfettered and uncontrolled right to make those decisions as they deem fit for the security of their freedom.

    As the declaration of independence states, we the people of the US have the right to alter, amend or abolish our government and to institute new forms that protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They retained their sovereignty to govern themselves, as Madison says in FP 39: “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government.”

  11. JMB Says:

    I have recently spent some considerable time reading several state constitutions and I noticed that they include (what seems to me) very well written bills of rights, upon which, if there should happen to be any particular wrongs perceived by those peoples of these states, they are enabled with practicable abilities, to further redress, WHEREAS in unrealistic opposition, is this United States Constitution, in which a mere minority of states can effectively make these same endeavors to remedy impossible.

    This federal government is acting as if there are no Constitutional limits to its own powers whatsoever, and you are telling me that because a mere minority of states also happen to agree that this is now reasonable, that this is what obligates the rest of us to do nothing about it, unless, we can reform this very Constitution that is being ignored in the first place.

  12. Timothy_Baldwin Says:

    Amen, JMB. Each state has an obligation to protect freedom within its borders.

  13. Ret. Marine Says:

    Try this just demand they follw the Constitution or face prison time or a firing squad. Too simple you say. Yeah no one wants war, tryanny, or enslavement, but you have to agree better to live standing up like a man for the right reasons than begging upon one’s knees in serfdom for the wrong reason, being a coward.

  14. Kerry L. Morgan Says:

    Tim:

    The challenge seems to be 1) what means may be employed to confine the federal government to its Constitutionally enumerated powers, or 2) if that is hopeless, to abolish the national government and establish compacts among states for matters of commerce, legal tender and military, etc.

    If 20 states secede for instance, this does nothing to confine the federal government to its enumerated powers or abolish the national government. It just means 20 states opt out and create compacts by and among themselves as they desire. It also means that a Leviathan federal government still exists and not only will continue to rule the other 30 states but will want to war against the 20 that left.

    This may be the inevitable result. But if there is a chance that 40 or 50 states could agree to abolish the government created by the Constitution, it would be worth every effort to seek that result. That is why the states must at least get together and coordinate what they are doing here. I have called this a Congress of States which would receive state delegates chosen by the state legislatures to attend a congress and come up with a common plan of dissolution (not secession). This congress would have no authority to bind any state but would report back to the state legislatures who in turn could take whatever action each deemed best.

    Its just that jumping to secession off the bat failed militarily the last time. 1860 style secession is not a good Plan A. It may be an inevitable Plan B, but Plan A should be to get the states together to see what we can all agree on, if anything, first.

  15. C. Cope Says:

    Every time succession is brought up, someone always has to bring up the subject of the military. I can assure you that if my state declares succession from the union, and the military tries to put an end to it, while I may eventually die … I will be making a several salad bowls from several hundred yards out.

    Their call.

    And for your info:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ccTgCdHeiIU/S1v7F7Pb_GI/AAAAAAAAAdw/hOMGGeYhNXk/s1600-h/Military+Regional+Commander.jpg

    Found at:

    http://causapatet.blogspot.com/2010/01/once-again-in-case-you-were-sleeping.html

    Just some suggested reading:

    # American Creation
    # American Sphinx
    # Arundel
    # George Washington’s War
    # His Excellency: George Washington
    # James Madison: A Biography
    # Jefferson
    # John Adams
    # Mayflower
    # Rabble in Arms
    # Setting the World Ablaze
    # The Federalist
    # The Revolution: A Manifesto
    # The Spirit of Seventy – Six

    Also, The Avalon Project is an excellent source of info:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp

    “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” – James Madison

    “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” -Thomas Jefferson

    “A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country, or which infringes and express exceptions to the power of the Constitution.” – Alexander Hamilton

    “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government … lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry

    “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” – South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

    I got this published at WND:

    I am going prove to you that the right to bear arms is an individual right … AND a collective right:

    http://causapatet.blogspot.com/2009/12/i-am-going-prove-to-you-that-right-to.html

    If it is not restricted by the Constitution … nor delegated by the same … there is absolutely no power.

  16. JMB Says:

    I also believe and will fight along with the people of my state who believe that the right to own and maintain hand guns and rifles responsibly is my own, as well as it is yours.
    However, it is my opinion that this federal government has no right to suggest that their interpretation of the 2nd amendment within the United States Constitution, gives them every right to interpose themselves into my own states business.

    If these feds decide that this right for us to own guns is every and forever their business, I will not support these opinions of National force, against my own state.

  17. Greycoat Says:

    Jahn Petrovsky stated:

    “Of course the federal government is sovereign over the states. The Constitution plainly says that is the case in Article VI par 2:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    What John glossed over and/or completely ignored is that the Laws of the United States which SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF (capitalized for emphasis).

    …SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF

    The only Laws of the United States that has supremacy are those laws make in accordance with its enumerated powers designated by the U.S. Constitution and/or pursuant thereto.

    A US law enacted, which is not within one of the enumerated powers is supreme to nothing. It is void for it falls outside the confines set forth in the US Constitution, i.e. the enumerated powers. For the laws clearly enacted by the States that fall within the powers reserved to the States and the people is supreme over any US law that intrudes into the powers that solely belong to the people and the states.

  18. Brutus Says:

    Federal laws pursuant to which delegated authority of the constitution Jahn Petrovsky?

    Even Alexander Hamilton, the mini monarchist that he was, can help you understand that if there is no explicit delegated authority in the constitution for the federal government to act … then it has no power to do so.

    Federalist Paper No. 84

    “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

    They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

    For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

    Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

    I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
    They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”

    Look how far our 2nd amendment has come on colorable pretext.

  19. Mark Are Says:

    After reading these posts, especially Jahn’s, I have to say this…
    Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?
    Which came first? God or Man?
    Then which came first? The State or Man?
    Then which came first? The Federal government or the State governments?

    Obviously if MAN came before the state, he has the right to abolish HIS creation. And obviously if the “state” (a body politic of PEOPLE) came before the federal government, the “states” have the right to abolish THEIR creation.

    Surely, this can’t be so complicated, can it? The Constitution is a CONTRACT for all intents and purposes,and if the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT VIOLATES THE CONTRACT then it makes the contract null and void between participating parties. Which for all intents is exactly what is going on. They IGNORE their portion of the contract and expect our allegiance. BULL!

    The “states” (that is the people who are in control of them) need to raise militias for the purpose the 2nd amendment is written…FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. Then simply pass what laws they want and as in Wyoming, make it a CRIME for a federal employee to violate the law. Make it punishable with a fine and or prison time. ENFORCE it with the militia. I want to see some BATF agent come into my county if I am the SHERIFF of that county in Wyoming and try to arrest on of my citizens for some BS thought crime that the FEDERALS put on teh books that violate the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. As I lock the clown up I can here him screaming…FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE law…BULL!
    I say to Jahn and anyone who thinks like him…move to a country where there are no states (body politic of people) to protect your rights from an encroaching federal government.

    Seriously!

Leave a Reply