What Is The U.S. Constitution?

I am reposting this article which I wrote a couple of years ago... Please read, learn and enjoy... More importantly... act... as the time has come for us to do far more then just being heard... The time has come for us to take our Nation back... She has loved each of us and has served us proudly... It is now time to give back that which she has provided... We must now protect her and all for which she stands!

I believe that many of our citizens need to be educated about what a constitution actually is and does before constitutional law and freedom can be restored within our nation.

1. The constitution does not create freedom.

A constitution is created to protect and secure freedoms which already exists, through forms, structure and expressed or implied limitations of government. Our foundering fathers stated in the verbiage of 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 believes that the U.S. Constitution statically creates freedom for all the people of the states, then I fully understand how they would be shocked or angered at the suggestion that the Constitution is dead.

Please recognize 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 as well as rights never die. They existed prior to the penning of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence and they will exist long after we are gone. Thus, a distinction must be clearly defined 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 our own nation’s history. A constitution rests upon a serious distrust of human nature, and simultaneously upon the skeptical and temporary trust placed in delegated or relegated power, which supposedly will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” James Madison, Federalist Paper: 46. These principles determine as well as define the constitution’s nature, character, form, and function. This implies that a constitution itself is to be contrasted to the eternal principles that initially formed the constitution, and where government does not conform its actions and intentions to the principles of said 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:

(a) “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).

(b) “[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.

(c) “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.

Therefore, 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)? Absolutely 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.

Views: 47

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service