by Steve Kendley
February 16, 2010
original found here.

I am writing you to tell you of a major plan that I am undertaking after great personal reflection and prayer.

Please allow me to give you some background.I have had a varied life, holding many great occupations and hobbies, but one constant interest since I was a young boy is my love for firearms. It was this interest that caused our paths to cross. You could not know that my interest in firearms led me, through complicated circumstances, to take a huge chance several years ago. I began to study with great interest the importance of the elected “Office of Sheriff” and explore how unique the “Office” is and more importantly may become in our future. I learned that the Sheriff is the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” elected by the people in every county.

As I researched more, I became more excited. I believe the “Office of Sheriff” is a check and balance that the founders of this country must have counted on to protect the very document and its ideals that have held our country together these centuries. As “Chief Law Enforcement Officer”, the sheriff is elected by the people to be the last protector, standing in the gap, to guard our freedoms at the individual level. The sheriff, if he knows his true authority, is the grass roots defender of the Constitution.

In fact, though most do not know it, the selection of your sheriff has probably more potential to affect each citizen’s welfare than their choice of president. It is not advertised as such, but it is true that the Sheriff, besides being sworn to uphold the Constitution, is the leader of the militia in each county of the United States!

In Montana there is now an attempt to put legislation in front of the voters called the “Sheriff First Law”. This law will require any Federal Law Enforcement Agency to get the permission of the county sheriff first, before undertaking any action in a county (as it should be). The sheriff would then have the power to approve or veto that request! Imagine constitutionally aware sheriffs protecting their citizens from abuses that threaten them and having the authority to hold those agents accountable for their actions.

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act is serving as a model for other states. I have heard more than twenty states have now adopted similar legislation. These concepts could spread and have a huge affect for the cause of freedom…

…

If you can, pass this on to your readers. Please do remember me in your prayers. If you will allow this message, please ask your readers to see my web site at www.sheriffkendley.com.

Read more: here.

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.

by Timothy Baldwin

The financial system our federal government created in 1913 and thereafter maintained has created nothing but iron chains around the hands, feet and necks of the states of America. Unfortunately, most Americans do not understand the unconstitutionality and dangers of this system (mostly because of a lot of brainwashing over the years). When politics begin to affect the wallet, however, many Americans all of a sudden become politically active and “righteously” indignant. This sadly reveals that principles of truth are not priority. But if a person even cares about America’s history, principles of freedom as accepted by our forefathers or the natural and revealed laws of God, he has to admit that one of the most fundamental elements of freedom is financial freedom. These fundamentals confirm the right of individuals to work in exchange for other items contracted for by the engaged parties, to reap all the benefits and rewards of his labor, skill and intellect without the unjust or unauthorized interference of anyone else, including government. Our Declaration of Independence categorizes this natural right as the “pursuit of happiness,” meaning property, which money certainly is.

Despite financial freedom being considered a natural right, our federal government has ignored this right and principle of freedom; and today, it controls virtually every aspect of money, starting with money’s very creation (i.e. printing) through the inaptly-named, Federal Reserve System (created in 1913 by Congress). But the idea of this system did not come from our forefathers. In fact, based upon the principles of individual freedom, self-government and limited government, our founders rejected the federal government’s power to print money by giving only this power to Congress in Article 1, Section 8: “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Moreover, States agreed (by ratification of the U.S. Constitution) that they would only be limited as follows relevant to money and currency: “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Since 1913, the federal government has been perpetually acting unconstitutionally; and today, States are forced to violate the U.S. Constitution and accept fiat money as tender in payments of debts.

Even a shallow scan of America’s history reveals that our founders and ratifiers considered the constitution to be worth nothing more than fire starter if Congress had the power to print money and create a fiat monetary system. Consider of a few of our founders’ position on the money system we have had since 1913 (citing from, George Bancroft, History of the United States of America: From the Discovery of the Continent [to 1789], Volume 6, [New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1890], 301–303) (Emphasis added):

“[George] Mason of Virginia had a MORTAL HATRED TO PAPER MONEY.”

“[The ratification of the U.S. Constitution] is a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money, which can in no case be necessary. THE POWER MAY DO HARM, NEVER GOOD. Give the government credit, and other resources will offer. “(Oliver Ellsworth)

“PAPER MONEY CAN NEVER SUCCEED WHILE ITS MISCHIEFS ARE REMEMBERED; and, as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.” (James Wilson).

“Rather than give the power [to congress to emit bills] I WOULD REJECT THE WHOLE PLAN [of the Constitution].” (John Langdon)

“[Under the ratified version of the U.S. Constitution], THE PRETEXT FOR A PAPER CURRENCY, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, WAS CUT OFF.” (James Madison)

“[Nathanial] Gorham favored STRIKING THE WORDS [in the Constitution, allowing Congress to “EMIT BILLS”] without a prohibition inserted in the document, feeling that if the words were to stand, this could lead to the issuance of paper money.”

“Pierce Butler remarked that paper money was a legal tender in no other country in Europe, and he wanted to DISARM THE GOVERNMENT OF SUCH POWER.”

“George Read stated that if the words [and emit bills] were not struck, IT WOULD BE AS ALARMING AS THE MARK OF THE BEAST IN REVELATION.”

“This is the interpretation of the [Article 1, Section 8] clause…History cannot name a man who has gained enduring honor by causing the issue of paper money.” Ibid., 303. Contradicting these sound lessons and mandates of human history, the U.S. Constitution and natural law (meaning, the value of commercial exchange should have actual value, not pretend value), the federal government has for nearly 100 years operated under a fiat financial system, printing money out of thin air, being backed by nothing of substance, increasing the federal debt, causing inflation, decreasing the value of our contracted-for work, diminishing our future investments, and jeopardizing the lives of millions (just to name a few). Do you think that a country is living in freedom when this takes place?!

The very implementation and structure of the Federal Reserve System is corrupt, considering the most basic principles of a free society, as it puts the power of the fiat money market into the control of a few unelected and uncontrolled people. The danger of this system was recognized immediately by financial experts after its implementation. Consider what Professor John Holdsworth observes in 1914: “It is obvious that a board clothed with such powers can exercise an enormous influence either for good or ill upon the new system. Success or failure…will depend largely upon their ability, wisdom, and tact.” John Thom Holdsworth, Money and Banking, 6th Edition, (New York: Appleton, 1914), 353. Is the definition of “oligarchy” coming to mind?

The creation of our Constitutional Republic was to place the power of securing individual natural rights under the constraints of a fixed constitution into the hands of many who would be affected by its abuse: that is, the people and their agents! The federal system was entirely a check and balance upon all powers in the federal government: checks by the people directly, checks by the other branches of federal government, checks by time itself and checks by the state governments. Yet, the Federal Reserve System literally removes one of the most fundamental natural rights (property) from the control, oversight and power of the people and of their closest representatives (Congress and the State governments). America’s monetary system is without a doubt despicable, unnatural, fraudulent and dangerous.

So, what is our federal government going to do about it? What have they done since 1913? Nothing! I believe we can say with certainty they will continue their legacy. Sure, we know Congressman Ron Paul (and maybe a few others) has attempted to make a difference in this area (See, H.R. 4683, The Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007). God bless him for his lone-wolf efforts. However, even with a Republican-controlled federal government from 2000 to 2008, nothing has been done to bring the Federal Reserve into accountability and responsibility, much less to termination–all this after nearly 100 years of this corrupt system being woven into the fabric of our states and even the entire world. We can say with assurance that putting our hope in the federal government to control the monster it has created is misplaced. It is disgusting how the federal government usurps the delegations and trusts of its power, violates the principles and limitations of the constitution, does nothing to reverse the usurpations and expressly revert these powers back to the states and the people. Still, every year, they expect that we vote for them and look to Washington D.C. for the answers to our problems. What a racket of tyranny! Yet, most take the bait. I would not trust them with taking caring for my dog.

There is, however, an alternative solution–one that our founders expected in cases of federal usurpations: the STATES. What has to be concluded here is that since the federal government does not possess the power to create this fiat system, it of course has acted unconstitutionally since 1913, depriving individuals, the people and the states of the powers they retained under the ninth and tenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Being sovereign, the states have the power to do what their constitutions give them power to do in this regard. As a result, the States must take courage to use of their inherent sovereignty: they must be energized by the force of truth, the fire of freedom and the passion of the people. The state governments must recognize this: we, who demand justice, demand that our states retake powers that rightly belong to us, terminate powers that have wrongly been usurped by tyrants, and create within our borders a free and independent system of finance and commerce.

The States must recognize and proclaim once again that,

“Paper money has no hold, and from its very nature can acquire no hold, on the conscience or affections of the people. It impairs all certainty of possession, and taxes none so heavily as the class who earn their scant possession by daily labor. It injures the husbandman by a twofold diminution of the exchangeable value of his harvest. It is the favorite of those who seek gain without willingness to toil; it is the deadly foe of industry. No powerful political party ever permanently rested for support on the theory that it is wise and right. No statesman has been thought well of by his kind in a succeeding generation for having been its promoter.” Bancroft, History of the United States of America, 304.

Until the States become capable of monetarily sustaining themselves as sovereign states are supposed to, the federal government has nothing but incentive to keep the States enslaved to a worthless, fiat system of slavery, which only feeds the power of the federal government with each print of a fiat dollar bill. When the States become monetarily strong and independent, hope for financial freedom will once again return to our States. The question is, which States are willing to protect freedom for their citizens.

by Timothy Baldwin

After my latest article, Our Dead Constitution, was released, I received much response, many from those who understood and agreed, and some by those who were opposed to my statement, “Our constitution is dead.” This leads me to reasonably believe that many of us need to be educated about what a constitution actually is before constitutional law and freedom can be restored throughout the states.

1. A constitution does not create freedom. A constitution is created only to protect and secure freedom which already exists, through forms, structure and limitations of government. This is what our founders said in the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Therefore, if one’s perspective about the U.S. Constitution is that it statically creates freedom for all the people of the states, then I could understand how he would be shocked or angered at the suggestion that the U.S. Constitution is dead. To the contrary, we know that freedom exists in a state of nature, created by God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These natural laws and rights never die. They existed prior to 1787 and they will exist after we are gone. Thus, a distinction must be made between natural freedom (which never dies) and a constitution (which can die).

2. A constitution may be worthless to secure freedom. History proves this–even America’s history. A constitution rests upon a serious distrust of human nature, and simultaneously upon the skeptical and temporary trust placed in delegated power, which supposedly will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” James Madison, Federalist Paper (FP) 46. These principles determine the constitution’s nature, character, form, and function. This necessarily means that a constitution itself is to be contrasted to the eternal principles that formed the constitution, and where government does not conform its actions and intentions to the principles of the constitution, the constitution itself is practically meaningless and dead. American jurist, William Rawle, expresses the same: “By a constitution we mean the principles on which a government is formed and conducted.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2.

That our government must conform its actions and intentions to these principles is confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, by those who formed our constitutions, and by those who helped form the very fundamental thoughts of American jurisprudence: (1) “Let the nature and objects of our Union be considered; let the great fundamental principles on which the fabric stands be examined.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 423 (1821). (2) “[N]o free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but…by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Benjamin Kidd, Principles of Western Civilisation, citing Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776, (London, The Macmillan Co., 1902), 511. (3) “Once the principles of government are corrupted, the very best laws become bad and turn against the [people of the] state.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 116.

Thus, a maxim must be admitted: where the principles of freedom are abandoned, the constitution no longer serves its constituted purpose; that is, to limit the government as the consent of the governed demanded at its creation. And once the constituted purposes and principles are abandoned, how could it be argued that the constitution has life? Is the form (the constitution) greater than the substance (the principles)? Certainly not.

3. When a government breaches its limitations placed upon it by a constitution, (a) the government agent loses its trust to rule, (b) the powers delegated to it are reverted back to the creators of the constitution, and (c) the constitution becomes non-binding on those who created it. This is the natural law concept of “the consent of the government,” as expressed in our Declaration of Independence. It is further a concept regarding the rights of the parties who enter into a compact. As noted by our founders, we do not normally exercise this natural and compact right over “light and transient causes,” but in cases where a “long train of abuses” are evident. European forefather, Hugo Grotius, recognizes that when a government contradicts the principles that created its power, that creation (i.e. kingdom/constitution) dies and the people have the right to institute new government:

“[I]f the king act, with a really hostile mind, with a new to the destruction of the whole people…that the kingdom is forfeited; for the purpose of governing and the purpose of destroying cannot subsist together.” Hugo Grotius and William Whewell, trans., Hugo Grotius on the Rights of War and Peace, Book II, (Cambridge: University Press, 1853), 57–58.

A constitution that has been continually breached by the government is no longer a constitution at all, because the very purpose of a constitution is to limit the government by the will of the people who created it. Thus, a people who continually live under an abandoned constitution do not live under a constitution at all; but rather, they live in voluntary slavery, and the constitution is dead to those people and that government. It is literally time “to alter or to abolish” that constitution before the people’s lack of resistance is deemed to be “the consent of the governed.” (See, Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 185. “[T]o conquer [the existing constitution’s] will, so as to rest the right on that, the only legitimate basis, requires long acquiescence and cessation of all opposition.”)

4. Particular to the United States, the U.S. Constitution was voluntarily formed as a compact by existing sovereign states with existing state constitutions. See FP 39. Despite the deceptive proposition that the States were created by Congress, the States existed prior to and independent of any Congress, as confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in 1783 (which, by the way, was not overturned by any subsequent legal action of the states). “The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 31. And, “Each State, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.” James Madison, FP 39.

Today, there is a fraudulent notion in America which places the U.S. Constitution above the importance and relevance of the state constitutions and state sovereignty, despite the fact that we were told (in efforts to get us to ratify the U.S. Constitution) that “the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 32. The authoritative advocates of the U.S. Constitution confirm that even with the U.S. Constitution ratified or with the U.S. Constitution dissolved, the states would have their own constitutions to protect freedom and secure the blessings of liberty within that state.

It was even proposed during the 1780s that instead of one confederacy being created through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, several confederacies be ratified instead. See FP 2. So, it cannot be accurately stated that the U.S. Constitution was the sole form of convenience of the states. The U.S. Constitution was in fact an “experiment” of union, which admittedly may not work. James Madison, FP 14. Many notable American patriots, of course, (prophetically and correctly) believed the U.S. Constitution would in time, by constitutional construction, become destructive to the natural rights and sovereignty of the people of the states. Even pro-U.S. Constitution advocates warned us of the tyrannical tendency of central governments and implored the State governments to “afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 28.

Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution no more creates freedom than any other government creates freedom; and that the U.S. Constitution was simply a union of states for very limited purposes, all of which were and can be handled by the states themselves without the existence of the U.S. Constitution or federal government.

5. Constitutions can be destructive to freedom where the document itself is used against the people. Montesquieu expounded upon this, as I cited in, Our Dead Constitution. If you disagree, pray tell, how is it that Congress can regulate virtually anything it desires under the Commerce Clause of the constitution? How can the United States Supreme Court “constitutionally” uphold those unconstitutional acts by its rulings, which are supposedly made impartially “according to the rules of the Constitution” (FP 39)? How can the bill of rights be used against the retained powers and sovereignty of the states, when the U.S. Constitution was never intended to limit the states whatsoever? How can a federation be turned into a nation without the consent of the people? How can the first amendment, designed to restrict the federal government in all regards (“Congress shall make no law…”), be used to not only make law through the federal courts but also restrict individuals and states from exercising their natural rights within their own jurisdictions?

How can the constitutional limitations of the federal courts to apply the Supreme Law of the Land be used to justify “federal supremacy” in un-enumerated powers over the states, contrary to the principles of the constitution? How can the constitution’s general welfare clause be a legal justification to the federal government socializing healthcare, economics, banks, manufacturing, and education, despite the clear intention of the ratifiers to the contrary? How can Congress create a fiat money system without any constitutional power whatsoever to do so? How can the President engage in an eight year war with no declaration from Congress? How can Obama supposedly not be eligible to be President while absolutely no one in the federal system cares? You call that a constitution alive and well!? I could go on and on, as many authors have already well documented for generations now. The long train of abuses is clear: the constitution has been and is being used every day against the freedoms and rights it is supposed to protect and against the principles and trust that created it.

6. Constitutions can be dissolved by those who created it. Our Declaration of Independence confirms this natural right, which is inherent in all sovereigns. The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the voluntary assent of the sovereigns of the states, in their capacity as states. FP 39. The states created the U.S. Constitution not to create freedom, not to create powers they did not already possess individually, and not to create union for union’s sake. They created it for certain benefits that union provided (at that time). If this union were ever destructive to these ends, the states would most certainly have the right to dissolve their part of the union to preserve freedom for that state. (James Madison, FP 39, “dissolution of the compact”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 28, “original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 26, “people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”)

Thus, a political maxim must be admitted: union, through the U.S. Constitution, does not equal freedom and can actually be destructive to freedom. Given the natural laws of sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation and self-government, the States may in fact be better off not to be a part of a union that is causing their demise. More pointedly put, the States may in fact be better off to declare the compact (the U.S. Constitution) or at least, the federal laws creating their demise, null and void within their sovereign borders. Naturally, this sovereign power can come in different forms, through nullification, active resistance to federal usurpations, controlling the mechanisms used against the states, and secession.

Regardless of your agreement with these truths, the information provided is all based upon the natural law and political discussions of those who formed the foundation of our Republic. The fact that we do not understand them only causes tyranny to tighten its grip on us. Before freedom will ever be restored, government will be limited, and the people will govern themselves, the sovereigns of the states must recognize that the U.S. Constitution is not the answer to our political and societal plight. Rather, it is the principles of freedom that provide the answer. The time has come in America when to restore constitutional law and freedom in the STATES, the people of the states must begin looking internally to their own powers, sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation, self-reliance and constitutions.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2009.

by Brion McClanahan, Ph.D.
November 26, 2009

I have often required my students on the first day or two of class to use the Oxford English Dictionary and define the following words: nation and state. Most do not follow my directions and submit a modern Webster’s or online distortion of the word, and those who use the Oxford often fail to provide the etymology of either word. I can’t fault them for that, because they have probably been taught since first grade in the public “school” system to submit the first definition they find. Thus, the common results of the activity are similar to the following:

Nation – noun: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. (from dictionary.com)

State – noun: the territory, or one of the territories, of a government. (from dictionary.com)

How profound, statist…and completely absurd! If both are true, than the United States should simply be the “United State.” A state is simply a “territory…of a government”? A nation is simply a large body of people that occupy a territory? That would be news to the founding generation. Of course, a careful reading of the history of both words could correct this mess and place the Union of the States within its proper historical context.

The word “nation” found its way into the English language around the 14th century. Under the old definition, a nation was a group of people who shared a similar racial, cultural, or religious background that often included elements such as a common language. A State was a sovereign political entity, not simply a “territory…of a government.” By viewing the United States through that lens it becomes clear that modern definitions of nation and state are the product of centralization and the mischaracterization of the federal government as a “national government.”

Certainly no one in the founding generation would have argued that Virginia and Massachusetts possessed the same cultural heritage. Virginia, with its strong Cavalier tradition, and Massachusetts, with its Puritan or roundhead foundations, were clearly at odds during the seventeenth century and beyond. The two colonies may have been populated by white, English Christians and who shared a common language, “English,” but as David Hackett Fischer beautifully explained in his Albion’s Seed, the two cultures were diametrically opposed in almost every conceivable way. From dress to food to speech, Virginia Cavaliers and Massachusetts Yankees were in many ways two separate nations, not simply separate cultures. The “shining city upon a hill” Puritans and their decedents never let Southerners forget their differences, nor did Southerners want to be lumped together with self-righteous Yankees. William Berkeley, the dominant figure in Virginia during the seventeenth century, despised Puritans and fought against them in the English Civil War. Later American sectionalism was little more than an explicit recognition of cultural differences and the existence of separate nations in North America dating to the early days of English settlement.

Adding to this American cultural cornucopia were the Celts, the Quakers, American Indian tribes, and African slaves, groups that had interesting and culturally significant contributions to the fabric of their respective regions as well. Thus, America in the colonial period was “multicultural” in a way that extended beyond race or religion. Western civilization and the English tradition dominated, but separate nations blotted the North American landscape. One of the most respected American historians on slavery, Eugene Genovese, wrote this about American culture in his Roll, Jordan, Roll: “Blacks and whites in America may be viewed as one nation or two, or as a nation within a nation, but their common history guarantees that, one way or another, they are both American.” This statement accentuates the point that the phrase “American nation” is a rhetorical fabrication of the last 150 years of American history.

This was not lost on the founding generation. John Adams once wrote that, “I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from thirteen sovereign States….” Each state had its own political and cultural life and each was “sovereign.” Robert Yates, writing as Brutus in 1787, observed that “In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this not be the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.” If applied to the United States, Yates concluded that:

The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care of decision, but would be composed of such heterogeneous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.

Of course, there were “nationalists” in the early federal period, but even they often understood that if the United States contained several nations rather than one, it would be better to separate than to consolidate. Gouverneur Morris, one of the most important “nationalists” (and womanizers) of this era, made the following statement during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787,

“But, to come more to the point – either this distinction [between the Northern and Southern States] is fictitious or real; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend incompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can be no end of demands for security, if every particular interest is to be entitled to it.”

And George Washington, often showcased as a fine example of the early “nationalists” and the glue that held the States together, said this about the people of Massachusetts in the early days of the War for Independence, “There is no nation under the sun that pays more adoration to money than they do.”

States’ rights and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution were intended to protect this cultural distinctiveness, and secession was often seen as the only hedge against aggression from other States or sections. This is why the three most powerful States in 1788, Virginia in the South, New York in the mid-Atlantic, and Massachusetts in the North, considered an explicit recognition of States’ rights an essential condition for ratification of the Constitution. Of course, those who champion States’ rights and decentralization are often accused of preferring “Balkanization” over the blessings and security of “one nation.” If the federal government followed its limited, constituted authority, such “Balkanization” would not be necessary, but hardly anyone in the founding generation would have agreed to a system of central government that currently exists in the United States. As Morris said in 1787, it would be better to separate than to subject one nation to the cultural imperialism of another State, section, or nation. Modern Americans have never been taught that lesson.

Brion McClanahan, Ph.D. is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers and a history professor at Chattahoochee Valley Community College in Phenix City, AL.

by Timothy Baldwin

During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a “more perfect union” (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.

Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.

Indeed, those who proposed such a national system of government (e.g., Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson and James Madison) would not have the people of the states aware of this proposal for fear of outright rejection of the Constitution and for fear that they would remove their delegates from the convention altogether, giving no chance of success for the ratification of a new Constitution. It was hush-hush for good reason. In fact, Alexander Hamilton was so tactful on the subject that he did not even present his nationalistic notions as a constitutional proposal, but only as his ideas of what America should be. (Ibid., 123) Despite these proposals, in the end, it was a federalist system that prevailed–a union of states and not a union of people, whereby the states retained complete and absolute sovereignty over all matters not delegated to the federal government. The states were indeed co-equal with the federal government. So, what was it about the national system that was rejected during the convention?

The most notable proposal reveals the underlying foundation for all national principles: that is, the national government possesses superior sovereignty to force the states to submit to the laws made by the national government and to negate any State law it deems repugnant to the articles of union. This supreme power was proposed (but rejected) as follows during the Federal Convention: the to-be national government should possess the power to “negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union.” (Ibid., 207) Hamilton, and his like, would have loved it had this national principle of supreme sovereignty been accepted by the delegates. Thankfully, it was not accepted. In fact, as the convention progressed, what became apparent to those who advocated for this national form of government is that their ideas would never be accepted and ratified.

History proves with absolute certainty that a national government and its assuming principles were rejected, not only by the framers of the US Constitution, but also by those who sent delegates to the Federal Convention and who ratified the US Constitution at their State conventions. More important than the limited powers of the federal government, the people of the states rejected the nationalist doctrine that the federal government had the power to negate State laws that it deemed contrary to the Constitution. (John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, [Washington DC, 1823], 15).

So, how is it that while the people of the states expressly forbade the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of the states the federal government can now control nearly every facet of life within the states and the states supposedly can do absolutely nothing about it? Most attorneys who think they know so much about America’s history and the US Constitution would say, “The United States Supreme Court is given the power to say what the Constitution means and that over the years, they have interpreted Congress’ power to reach the internal affairs of a State.” It is the “living Constitution” idea, simultaneously coupled with nationalistic doctrine, which proclaims that the actual meaning of the Constitution can change over time, and that such change is constitutional and does not deny the people their freedom protected under the compact of the Constitution.

Interestingly, the “living Constitution” idea is only used when it promotes a constitutional “construction” that expands and empowers the federal government and neuters the State governments. The “living Constitution” idea (advanced by the British Parliament) in fact is the very notion that caused America’s War for Independence. (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237)

The ludicrous proposition of a “living Constitution” begs numerous critical questions involving the very foundation of a free society, not the least of which is this: If the meaning of the Constitution can change over time, why did the Constitution’s framers spend nearly five months debating which words should be placed in the Constitution? More than that, why would the framers be so emotionally, mentally, intellectually and intensely involved in the question of what form of government we will have: national or federal?

How can it be that the judiciary branch of the federal government, which is not even politically responsible to the people or the states whatsoever (and only ever so slightly to the other federal branches), has the sole and complete power to say that the states have no power to interpret and comport to the US Constitution as they deem constitutional, when that same power was expressly rejected to the national government during the convention? After all, Hamilton and Madison both admit throughout the federalist papers that the states have complete and absolute sovereignty regarding the powers retained by them and granted to them by the people of each State, just as any foreign nation would. Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the only check on power is another independent power and thus, the only real power that could check federal power was State power. They even expected that the states would use their sovereign and independent power to the point of being the voice and, if necessary, the “ARM” of the people to implement a common defense against the federal government.

Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the federal government can never force the states out of existence and can never strip them of their rights and powers possessed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, except as delegated to the federal government. They even refer to the states’ right of self-defense in this regard to resist federal tyranny. Was this mere “bait and switch” rhetoric to get the people of the states to ratify what they thought was a pure federal system? How can the states possess the absolute sovereign power to check federal tyranny when they are bound to submit to the federal government’s interpretation of the Constitution? The two positions are necessarily incompatible with each other. To say that you have power, so long as I say you have power is to deny your power altogether.

Quite obviously, in no place does the Constitution grant to the federal government (in any branch) superior sovereignty over the states. Instead, the Constitution requires ALL parties to it (State and federal) to comply with the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. All the framers agreed that federal government and federal law do not equal the “supreme law of the land.” Both the federal government and the federal laws are bound by the terms to which all must comply. Thus, all parties must be watching each other to ensure each is complying with the compact. And as was admitted by even the most ardent nationalist (i.e., Daniel Webster) of America’s earlier history, each party to a COMPACT has the sole right to determine whether the other party has complied with the compact.

But over the years, a political idea contrary to our original federal system was adopted–not through open discussion and consent, but by fraud and force. This position states that whatever the federal judiciary rules equates to the “supreme law of the land” and the states must comply therewith, regardless of whether the federal law usurps the power the states retained under the Constitution. What the nationalists were unable to obtain through honest and open debate during the conventions they have obtained through the erroneously construed “supremacy” clause of the Constitution.

What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery. America has been duped into accepting a national government, not by interpolation, but by deceptive “construction.” If the federal government has the power to usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, where is the genius in our framers’ form of government?

Was this form of government the form that best secured our happiness and freedom? And if our framers in fact bequeathed to us a federal system, whereby the states were co-equal with the federal government in sovereignty and power regarding their powers, then where comes the notion that we now have a national system, whereby the states are mere corporate branches of the federal government? Where were the constitutional debates on that subject? Where was the surrendering of sovereignty by the states, which can only be done through expressed and voluntary consent? Where was the right of the people to establish the form of government most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do we just accept the fact that our form of government can change over time without express and legal action being taken to effect that change? God forbid!

In 1776, the colonies rejected the European (nationalist) form of government. In the UNITED STATES, the people of the states ardently believed that their freedoms would be best protected if each of their agents (State and federal) possessed equal power to check the other against encroachments of power and freedom. This was the “more perfect union” of the US Constitution. How could the founders have suggested that the US Constitution was a “more perfect union” as a nationalist system, when the nationalist system was the very system they seceded from and rejected? That is nonsense!

Ironically, the very document that was designed to perpetuate these principles of federalism has in fact been de-constructed to destroy those same principles, leaving us with the very form of government that our framers and the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected. In the end, if the people of the states do not once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism–the principles upon which America was founded–then this supposed federal power of constitutional “construction” will in fact be our freedom’s destruction.

Copyright ©Timothy Baldwin 2009

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.