by Timothy Baldwin

September 17th marks the celebrated day of Continental Congress’ approval of the Constitution of the United States of America. It is sort of a sad day to remember when looking at it from today’s conditions, creating a nostalgia of what things were once like.   From the Continental Congress, the proposed constitution was submitted to the states for their consideration and ratification. (The Continental Congress had no authority except what the states gave them.) The battles concerning limited government began then, and they still rage today.

The same spirit of self-government and limited government competed against the spirit of government-control and centralism then and now. Predictably so, both claim that their position is the correct and intended spirit of the founding fathers. Both claim that their spirit is “getting back to the constitution”. While certainly some of the founders expressed tendencies towards nationalism and others towards federalism, only one philosophy prevail: both cannot be the true “victors”.

On May 26, 1936, constitutional professor of Princeton University, Edward Samuel Corwin, penned these words in his book, “The Commerce Power Verses States Rights: ‘Back to the Constitution’”:

“‘Back to the Constitution’ is the motto of this small volume, and by ‘Constitution’ is meant the Constitution of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison (the Madison of 1787, not of 1798, nor of 1829), and of John Marshall; not the ‘interested sophistications’ of those later foster fathers of the Constitution, certain distinguished counsel who about 1890 began, with the too frequent aid of a sympathetic Court, to enmesh the powers of the National Government in ‘a network of juridical nicities’.” (Edward Samuel Corwin, “The Commerce Power Verses States Rights,” Preface, (Princeton University Press, 1936).

Corwin reveals what few in politics would be willing to admit today: that he is biased–biased towards a constitutional view which favors boundless national expansion, regardless of state sovereignty.Let us be clear: none of these American statesmen would have prescribed to the boundless limits of federal power that Corwin and many socialists today would advocate. And even though each (to their own separate degree) advocated for an active and energetic federal government regarding certain limited matters, none advocated for federal usurpation over the states’ sovereign power to regulate its internal polity and commerce.

So what does Corwin suggest is getting “back to the constitution”, which he claims these great men of history would support? In part, this:

“Let [the interpretation of the constitution] recognize that the power to regulate commerce among the States is the power to govern it, and hence the power to restrain it; that this power, like all other powers of the National Government, is not limited by State power, but OVERRIDES ANY STATE POWER WITH WHICH IT COMES INTO COLLISION.” Ibid., 267. (Emphasis added).

This constitutional interpretation can truly be categorized as a limitless power of national government to control the internal affairs of the states, so long as Congress subjectively feels it promotes the “general welfare of the nation”.Did the people of the states really create this kind of government?

To understand Corwin’s position above, one must know that it is entirely a response to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) regarding Congress’ power to regulate intrastate commerce. In this “Child Labor Case”, Justice Day states the following as a supporting rationale to overrule a Congressional act regulating the states’ ability to transport products made by “child labor”:

“The grant of authority over a purely federal matter was not intended to destroy the local power always existing and carefully reserved to the States in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.***The maintenance of the authority of the States over matters purely local is as essential to the preservation of our institutions as is the conservation of the supremacy of the federal power in all matters entrusted by the Federal Constitution.” 247 U.S. 251, 274, 275.

This United States Supreme Court in 1918 simply follows what Justice John Marshall says in Gibbons v. Odgen in 1824: that matters that of internal commerce are matters solely within the sovereignty of the states. (See cite below). Contrarily, Corwin’s proposition of getting “back to the constitution” means that the National Government should pay no mind or respect to “purely local” matters of the states and should regulate any and all commercial matters “among the states”, regardless of the tenth amendment.

Unfortunately, Corwin’s proposal practically became an accepted interpretation of the constitution by the United States Supreme Court beginning in the “Constitutional Revolution of 1937”, when the United States Supreme Court upheld several Congressional Acts regulating “purely local” matters (which was able to be accomplished after Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to appoint new supreme court justices–The “New Deal” Court–to the bench during his administration). Undoubtedly, the overall attitude of the American people and politicians favored (or at least were not opposed to) federal government intervention in “purely local” matters because of the intense sufferings of the Great Depression. Today, we are facing the consequences.

While I have previously expounded upon former Chief Justice Marshall’s tendency to increase federal power, his supreme court opinions demonstrate that there is in fact a line of separation between Congress’ power to regulate commerce “among the states” and commerce which is internal to the state. (Gibbons v. Odgen, 22 U. S. 194 (1824), “It is not intended to say that these words [‘among the states’] comprehend that commerce which is completely internal.”). To suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line. It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation. If you accept Corwin’s proposition of “getting back to the constitution”, you might as well throw the tenth amendment in the dump, along with the freedom it protects.

Without having to reveal some of the ideology of the founders (such as Washington and Hamilton), it must acknowledged that equating Congress’ power to regulate the nation’s foreign affairs to its power to regulate the internal commerce of the states is ludicrous and incorrectly reflects the history of the United States of America’s union from 1776 to 1787. History proves that the states never had the same power regarding foreign affairs and commerce that they did in intrastate and interstate commerce. As they fought their war for independence in 1776, the colonies gladly conceded that King George had the power to regulate its commerce with foreign nations. But they did not concede that King George had the same power to regulate their internal affairs.

It was only upon necessity that they even considered calling a constitutional convention to reconsider Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. How can it be reasonably argued that the states’ intent was to give Congress the power to also regulate their internal commerce? This makes absolutely no sense and does not comport to the sentiment regarding state sovereignty during that day.

Even a quick observation and comparison of the Articles of Confederation and Constitution of the United States reveals that they are strikingly similar and require similar analysis: they were written and ratified only eleven years from each other! In such a short period of time, would the founders and all of the states have abandoned the confederate structure and principles that virtually all members of society believed to be the best method to protecting freedom? They did not, and they admitted that they did not abandon these principles.

The following are just a sample of strikingly similarities between the Articles and Constitution:

1. -Articles of Confederation, Article 1: “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” (Emphasis added).

-United States Constitution, Preamble: “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” (Emphasis added).

2. -Articles of Confederation, Article 2: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

-United States Constitution, Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

3. -Articles of Confederation, Article 3: “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their COMMON DEFENSE, THE SECURITY OF THEIR LIBERTIES, AND THEIR MUTUAL AND GENERAL WELFARE, binding themselves to assist each other.” (Emphasis added).

-United States Constitution, Preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (Emphasis added).

4. -Articles of Confederation, Article 4, clause 1: “[T]he free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES of free citizens in the several States.” (Emphasis added).

-United States Constitution, Article 4, clause 1: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES of Citizens in the several States.” (Emphasis added).

5. -Articles of Confederation, Article 4, clause 2: “If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be DELIVERED UP AND REMOVED TO THE STATE HAVING JURISDICTION OF HIS OFFENSE.” (Emphasis added).

-United States Constitution, Article 4, clause 2: “A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be DELIVERED UP, TO BE REMOVED TO THE STATE HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE CRIME.” (Emphasis added).

6. -Articles of Confederation, Article 4, clause 3: “FULL FAITH AND CREDIT shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.” (Emphasis added).

-United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 1: “FULL FAITH AND CREDIT shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” (Emphasis Added).

7. -Articles of Confederation, Article 6, clause 2: “No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled.”

-United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, clause 1: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.”

8. -Articles of Confederation, Article 6, clause 3: “No State shall LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled.” (Emphasis added).

-United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, clause 2: “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS.” (Emphasis added).

9. -Articles of Confederation, Article 6, clause 6: “No State shall ENGAGE IN ANY WAR without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled.” (Emphasis added).

-United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, clause 3: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…ENGAGE IN WAR, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” (Emphasis added).

10. -Articles of Confederation, Article 9, clause 1: “The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war… entering into treaties and alliances.”

-United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 11: “Congress shall have the power to declare War.”

11. -Articles of Confederation, Article 8: “[T]he 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.”

-United States Constitution, Article 6, clause 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.”

12. -Articles of Confederation, Article 8: “[T]he 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.”

-United States Constitution, Article 7: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

Of course there are many more parallels than just these. Looking at the striking similarities between the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution, it is a wonder how an unbiased studier of American jurisprudence could even suggest that the founders and the people of the states intended to abandon the principle of state sovereignty and suggest that the US Constitution was designed to give Congress the power to regulate intrastate commerce however it saw fit for the general welfare. Additionally, when studying the necessary involvement of the States to sustain the Federal government (which has been recognized by virtually every United States Supreme Court), the truth becomes very known that the federal government was never designed to encroach the powers the states possessed at the time the Constitution was ratified.

So when studying the rule proposed by Corwin (that the power to regulate intrastate commerce of the states is as vast and limitless as Congress’ ability to regulate foreign trade), the question becomes, did the founders (Washington, Hamilton and Madison) and ratifiers believe that Congress has such a power? Let us embark on the subject in a subsequent article.

What must be established to this point is that “getting back to the constitution” does not mean the same thing to everyone. But does that mean that everyone’s opinion is correct? Of course it does not.

Francis Lieber (attorney for Abraham Lincoln) expresses this in his book, “Principles of Interpretation and Construction”. ([Boston, MA, Little and Brown Co., 1839], 66). Every constitution is based upon principles–principles derived from a source that is higher than the constitution itself.

Thus, while it is obvious that modern Corwinians advocate that “getting back to the constitution” means expanding national power to unthinkable bounds, the conclusion of their being right or wrong does not necessarily rest on whether or not Washing, Hamilton and Madison (of 1787) desired to form a powerful national government to the exclusion of state sovereignty.

Rather, the answer of the true sense of the constitution lies in the principles of Nature and Nature’s God, upon which those words in the constitution rest. Of course, once you reach the conclusion founded upon those principles, conflict necessarily arises with those who disagree with you.

by Timothy Baldwin

The arguments against the power of the states to arrest federal tyranny are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, and they are as philosophical in nature as the Declaration of Independence. One of the most commonly used arguments against such a State power is the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) dicta opinion in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, written by Chief Justice John Marshall. Before getting into the misunderstandings and misapplications of that infamous decision, we must first recognize the source and character of Marshall’s opinion. As Marshall himself admitted that the US is to be a country of “laws, not men,” we must establish that Marshall’s opinion does not equate to the “supreme law of the land” which the states and individuals are bound to obey. If our submission only requires that the US S CT speak, then we do not live as freemen, but as slaves.

Marshall was an ardent member of the Federalist Party (a pro-centralist party) and served as the Secretary of State in the pro-centralist administration of President John Adams, who appointed Marshall to the US S CT in 1801 at the “midnight” hour before Thomas Jefferson was sworn into office as President of the US. Marshall’s nationalist opinions were no secret either. Marshall believed that the US Constitution and Union were formed by the aggregate whole of the American people, and not by a compact of the states; that the Union formed “one nation, indivisible” and not a confederation of states; that State sovereignty as expressed in the Tenth Amendment equated more to a general idea than to any real applicable and relevant State power over the federal government; that the Constitution must be liberally interpreted for the sake of expanding federal powers at the expense of State sovereignty; and that the idea of State sovereignty was literally ridiculous. By the way, even most self-called conservatives today probably subscribe to these political beliefs, not even knowing the real historical facts behind such fallacious ideology.

Concerning Marshall’s philosophical belief relative to the formation of the USA, this historical fact must be admitted. It is crucially important for our discussion today in America. Historian and politically-motivated author, Edward Samuel Corwin, said of Marshall in his book, “John Marshall and the Constitution” (New Haven, CT, Yale Univ. Press, 1920), p. 34: “[Marshall's] attitude [to strengthen the national power and to curtail State legislative power] was determined not only by his sympathy for the sufferings of his former comrades in arms and by his veneration for his father and for Washington . . . but also by his military experience, which had RENDERED THE PRETENSIONS OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY RIDICULOUS IN HIS EYES.” (Emphasis added.) There is no question that Marshall had a pre-destined belief against State sovereignty in favor of national power. Corwin describes Marshall’s political belief regarding the US as a “nationalistic creed.”

So, is the nationalistic political persuasion of one man (appointed by a nationalistic President) and one court to form the basis of the true understanding of the nature and character of the USA? After all, Marshall admitted that the US is established by the rule of law, and not the rule of men. So, by Marshall’s own definition in Marbury v. Madison, a US S CT opinion does not establish law, but rather should reflect what the paramount law already is: “The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.” So, as the age-old question has gone: who determines whether or not the federal government has usurped power from the people of the states and from the State governments? The Marbury v. Madison believers are likely jumping up and down right now, raising their hands, saying, “Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know! I know!” I can just see smirks on the faces of most ABA-law school graduates as they condemn anyone who would advocate another position to be true which is contrary to what Marshall presupposed to be true. Of course, their rationale goes as deep as a kiddy-pool and their thought process as far as an inner-city driveway.

Since 1803, the nationalists have pointed to Marshall’s declaration to conclusively say the states have no power over the opinion of the US S CT, for as Marshall states: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” From this, most American lawyers and law students come to the conclusion that there is no authority above and beyond the US S CT’s interpretation of the US Constitution. Whatever the US S CT rules becomes “settled law” and the states are completely bound–of course, unless the US S CT says something different later. I was taught this in law school and every other ABA-accredited law school in America teaches this. But a true legal study of Marbury v. Madison reveals that Marshall’s opinion (which was actually dicta) never addressed the issue of State sovereignty whatsoever. American historian, Forrest McDonald, reveals this fact in his book, “State’s Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876.” McDonald states, “Marshall was careful not to claim that the Supreme Court was the SOLE or FINAL ARBITER of acts of Congress.” (Emphasis added.) Ibid., (Lawrence, KS, Univ. Press of Kansas, 2000), p. 56. This is, in fact, the case.

Perhaps most telling about Marshall’s silence on the issue of being the sole or final arbiter is the fact that just a few years prior to his decision, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, had advocated the State’s ability to actively nullify and resist unconstitutional actions from the federal government. Since Marshall’s opinion was mostly dicta anyway–meaning it had no relevance to the issue at hand–why not go ahead and state that the US S CT is the ONLY final arbiter of the US Constitution? But Marshall never did, and neither has any US S CT decision since Marbury v. Madison.

Thus, when someone suggests that the states possess the sovereign power to arrest federal encroachments outside of constitutionally enumerated powers, the nationalists emphatically argue their unsupported conclusion that the USA is one nation, indivisible, where the US S CT possesses the sole authority as the final arbiter on all matters politically relative to the US Constitution, and to suggest otherwise is treason!–even when the most authoritative sources have been so pointedly laid out to the contrary. Marshall’s opinions have not settled this matter, and the USA must come to grips with who we are, what we are and how we are.

What’s more, Marshall’s opinions of national expansion were conclusively derived from one main principle: that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people and not by individual states through a compact. This fact was admitted by Marshall-lover, Corwin, in 1920. Corwin clearly expresses this point as follows:

“The great principles which Marshall developed in his interpretation of the Constitution from the side of national power . . . were the following: ‘(1) THE CONSTITUTION IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT A COMPACT OF THE STATES. (2) Consequently it is to be interpreted with a view to securing a beneficial use of the powers which it creates, not with the purpose of safeguarding the prerogatives of state sovereignty. (3) The Constitution was further designed . . . to be kept a commodious vehicle of the nation life . . . . (4) [The national government] is a sovereign government, both in its choice of the means by which to exercise its power and in its supremacy over all colliding or antagonistic powers. (5) The powers of Congress to regulate commerce is an exclusive power, so that the States may not intrude upon this field even though Congress has not acted. (6) The National Government and its instrumentalities are present within the States, not by the tolerance of the States, but by the supreme authority of the people of the United States.’ Of these several principles, THE FIRST IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT AND TO A GREAT EXTENT THE SOURCE OF THE OTHERS.” “John Marshall and the Constitution,” pp. 144-145. (Emphasis added.)

Corwin admits that all of Marshall’s opinions were based upon the presumption that the USA is a nation formed by the whole people as one body politic, and not by the individual, sovereign states via a compact. From this premise comes the vast expansion of federal power under the guise of constitutionality. Thus, if it were to be contrarily presumed that the USA is in fact a compact acceded to by the states, then the rules of interpretation that Marshall and subsequent US S CT justices used were wrong and require a different outcome. This fact cannot be overstated and is the source of all of the federal tyranny that many of you reading this article complain about. Thus, it behooves Americans to truly know WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR UNION: is it a National government formed by the whole people, or is it a compact among the states and acceded to by the states (otherwise known as a Confederacy)?

This article does not allow me to expound upon this subject in great depth, but it should be sufficient at this point at least to call into question Marshall’s presupposition regarding the nature and character of the USA by referring to some of the most authoritative sources on the subject during the formation of the US Constitution. Let us start with James Madison, who was one of the Federalist Paper authors and considered to be the Father of the US Constitution. In Federalist Paper 39, Madison examines the nature and character of the formation of the Union under the US Constitution. He admits that the US was formed by a federative (league of states) and NOT a national act. Madison proclaims:

“[T]he Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but . . . this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, NOT AS INDIVIDUALS COMPOSING ONE ENTIRE NATION, BUT AS COMPOSING THE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT STATES TO WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY BELONG. It is to be the ASSENT AND RATIFICATION of the SEVERAL STATES . . . The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will NOT BE A NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

“That it will be a federal and NOT A NATIONAL ACT . . . THE ACT OF THE PEOPLE, AS FORMING SO MANY INDEPENDENT STATES, NOT AS FORMING ONE AGGREGATE NATION, IS OBVIOUS from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF THE SEVERAL STATES that are parties to it . . . [T]he new Constitution will . . . be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (Emphasis added.)

Madison pens in the clearest of terms that the US Constitution is a compact assented to by the State sovereigns in their legal capacities as individual bodies politic, and NOT as one mass of people, forming one body politic. If this were not enough to at least raise a serious question as to what has been shoved down our throats for 150 years, consider that even Alexander Hamilton confirms that the US Constitution is a compact between the states, and NOT a national act of the whole people. He says in Federalist Paper 85:

“To its complete establishment throughout the Union, [the US Constitution] will therefore REQUIRE THE CONCURRENCE OF THIRTEEN STATES . . . [T]he necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the COMPACT . . . WE MAY SAFELY RELY ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO ERECT BARRIERS AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY.” (Emphasis added.)

Just in these two short excerpts from Founding Fathers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, we see that Marshall’s premise that the USA is a nation formed by the whole of the people and not by the compact of the states is seriously called into question, which, of course, calls into question all of the principles of constitutional interpretation and resulting conclusions which derive from that false premise.

An honest look at the presumption that only the US S CT has the power to interpret federal encroachments on State sovereignty will reveal that the states have more power than what has been admitted ever since Marshall took the position of chief justice of the US S CT. For as Marshall admits in Marbury v. Madison, “questions [that are] in their nature political . . . CAN NEVER BE MADE IN THIS COURT.” (Emphasis added.) By definition, issues of State sovereignty are in their nature political, just as a treaty between the USA and foreign countries regards the matter of political sovereignty. Therefore, when our states begin to assert their natural and sovereign right of self-defense against federal tyranny, each State will answer to their sovereign–the people–and NOT to the United States Supreme Court.

by Timothy Baldwin

Yes, yes, we have all heard the remarks from those who would call themselves conservative, libertarian or the like concerning the nomination and now swearing-in of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, which took place on August 8, 2009. Yes, yes, books have been written by those conservative and libertarian editorialists and authors who have explained to us that the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) is “out of control” and how we must elect “conservative” Presidents to appoint “conservative” judges. Ironically, this infatuation with the federal government, and specifically with the judicial branch of the federal government, has actually (at least in part) created the growing enslavement of the people of these States United.

Certainly we should care about who sits on the US S CT bench. However, the time has come in our Confederate Republic (the USA) to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and constitutionally is in the hands of the people of the several states of America–NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government. What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the US S CT is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the US Constitution.

When it comes to US S CT rulings that contradict the US Constitution and that reject the historical facts and principles of our Republic, people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the “liberal” judges with “conservative” judges. Such an approach to preserving freedom is not only un-American; it is fruitless and ineffectual. History now proves this. Additionally, this approach proves that the vast majority of Americans have been indoctrinated into the centralist-ideology imposed on us by not-so-innocent advocates of such a political belief system.

Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions. The US S CT can no more violate the Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches can. What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to? Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this unchecked and unlimited power in the very document that states its purpose is “to secure the blessings of liberty”?

The framework of our Confederate Republic was clearly understood by those who advocated its ratification, namely, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay: the writers of the Federalist Papers. These are the men who some today would argue advocated for a centralist government, reducing and eliminating the power of the states to resist and arrest federal usurpation of power. Obviously, these advocates of centralism would not have you aware of what these founders said on the subject, nor would they like to admit that the US Constitution formed a league of states, which was acceded to by each independent and sovereign act of the states, and which secured the right and duty of the states to actively guard against the encroachments of the federal government they created for the security of the blessings of liberty.

It must first be admitted that the US Constitution never gave to the US S CT the power to substitute their will for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution. This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 78:

“It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature . . . The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.”

Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our Confederate Republic, the US S CT MUST apply the Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the will of those who framed and acceded to the US Constitution. To suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law and the executive branch can carry out an unconstitutional law. Or as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the Constitution will “equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” Neither is acceptable and neither is constitutional.

One cannot credibly and correctly argue that whatever the US S CT says goes. I should not even have to restate this maxim, but in America, it has been held true that any unconstitutional act is null and void. This applies to the US S CT as well. Thus, the question becomes, what can and what must the states do when all three branches of the federal government ignore the Constitution and trample over the intents of its foundational principles? The authors of the Federalist Papers give us some guidance on the subject.

In Federalist Paper 16, Hamilton explains in detail the states’ right to actively resist federal tyranny and usurpation of power. Listen to Hamilton:

“The plausibility of this objection [that the states will at any time obstruct the execution of federal laws] will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage.

“But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights . . . Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, UNLESS IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY.” (Emphasis added.)

Here, Hamilton clearly recognizes the states’ ability to actively intervene against the federal government “in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority.” Hamilton also expounds upon the natural protection that the new system of the US Constitution provides, in that states will not so easily and readily interfere with federal action when such interference must be made actively and openly against the federal government. Certainly, where at least three-fourths (the percentage needed to amend the Constitution) of the states disagree with the State actively resisting the federal government, that State will consider the risks and costs to be too great to carry out and thus would not resist actively; instead, that State would use its VOICE and not its ARM to communicate its discontent. However, as told by Hamilton, “IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY,” the states most certainly would use their ARM to arrest such tyrannical actions.

Hamilton describes the use of this ARM of the States in Federalist Paper 26:

“[T]he State legislatures, WHO WILL ALWAYS BE NOT ONLY VIGILANT BUT SUSPICIOUS AND JEALOUS GUARDIANS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AGAINST ENCROACHMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent . . . [T]he 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.” (Emphasis added.)

Hamilton goes so far as to say, if the federal government has usurped its powers and the people of the states feel it necessary, the states should secede from the union, dividing “themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.” This is not I stating this: this is one of the most well-known Founding Fathers in American history. Hamilton further expounds upon this states’ right and duty to check federal usurpation of power in Federalist Paper 28. He says,

“Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and THESE [THE STATES] WILL HAVE THE SAME DISPOSITION TOWARDS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. IF THEIR RIGHTS ARE INVADED BY EITHER, THEY CAN MAKE USE OF THE OTHER AS THE INSTRUMENT OF REDRESS. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!” (Emphasis added.)

Very clearly, Hamilton sees the brilliance of our Confederate Republic system of government, whereby the states can check the federal government and that where “rights are invaded” by the federal government, the people “can make use of the [states] as the instrument of redress.” Hamilton continues in this discussion, saying:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WILL, IN ALL POSSIBLE CONTINGENCIES, AFFORD COMPLETE SECURITY AGAINST INVASIONS OF THE PUBLIC LIBERTY BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, THEY CAN AT ONCE ADOPT A REGULAR PLAN OF OPPOSITION, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and UNITE THEIR COMMON FORCES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR COMMON LIBERTY.” (Emphasis added.)

Even as expressed by the centralists’ hero, Alexander Hamilton, the states were not left impotent regarding federal tyranny and were not stuck with the fruitless redress only through the US S CT. Hamilton clearly suggests that the states have the sovereign and active power to arrest the exercise of federal tyranny.

Again, the question here is not, does the federal government have the power to act within its delegated powers, for we all would concede that the federal government has the power to do what we the people in the several states delegated to the federal government. We acknowledge, as Hamilton expresses in Federalist Paper 27, “the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land.” Rather, the question is, what are the states going to do in response to the usurpation of powers that have been tyrannically taken by all three branches of the federal government? The question is, what are the states going to do when the federal government has passed, upheld and executed laws that are not “enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction”? After all, such laws are by definition NOT the supreme laws of the land and consequently, the people of the states and the states themselves are not bound to them. (Of course, this necessarily implies that we the people understand the Constitution, the principles of our government and the true character and nature of our government.)

Are the people of the states to sit back and let the federal government trample over the rights, principles and structure of our Confederate Republic? Is every State to shirk its responsibilities and duties to actively protect, preserve and defend the freedoms of its sovereign (the people of the State) against federal tyranny? Are the people of the states to live and be governed in tyranny with the only hope that we will hopefully elect a President who will hopefully appoint a US S CT justice to the bench so that the Court can hopefully hear a case on the direct issue so that the Court will hopefully rule the correct way? Nonsense!

The time has come that the people of the several states of America wake up to the truth of their history: they are citizens of independent and sovereign states; the US S CT is NOT the final arbiter in matters of freedom; the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored. To that end, we must not fear Sotamayor; rather, we should insist that she fear the states–and obey the Constitution!