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: 49

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

 Kavanaugh Accuser Donated   To Hillary Clinton  10 Times,  60+ Liberal Groups 

Reportedly attempted to conceal political activity by scrubbing social media accounts

Over the weekend, a name and face were added to the previously anonymous sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, which is now threatening to derail his nomination. Those looking to obstruct Kavanaugh’s confirmation certainly saved their best for last, as the prior attempts included pathetic stunts such as:

– Claiming to file perjury charges against Kavanaugh, which only Jeff Sessions would have the ability to file.

– Packing the hearings with hysterical protesters, resulting in hundreds of arrests.

– Threatening female Republicans with extortion.

– Cory Booker comparing himself to Spartacus, the escaped slave who led a revolt against the Romans.

The identity of the accuser was revealed as Christine Blasey Ford, who has agreed testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ford reportedly made the allegations back in July in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Feinstein waited until it was close to the vote to confirm Kavanaugh before making the accusations public.

There’s a record of Ford making the accusation in a 2012 therapy session, though Kavanaugh isn’t named in the session notes that Ford gave to the press. Ford alleges that in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh entered a room drunk, pinned her to a bed, and groped her over her clothing. Kavanaugh “categorically denied” the allegations.View image on Twitter

Fin Gomez @finnygo   NEW: Statement from Judge Brett Kavanaugh:

There is a slight discrepancy in the account Ford provided in her letter to Feinstein and in her therapist’s notes, but that could simply be due to an error on her therapists part.

There are however some other questions that need to be answered which call into question Ford’s motives.

As Grabien reported, they include:

1. Why Ford deleted her public social media accounts before revealing herself.

Ford deleted all of her public social media before she came forward, making it difficult to see the advocacy and partisanship she was engaged in the time leading up to her making her allegation public. Of course, Ford may simply value her privacy, but the act of deleting her public postings will inevitably make some wonder what she didn’t want seen.

2. That Ford may have an unrelated grudge against Kavanaugh, as his mother, once a circuit court judge, ruled against Ford’s parents.

In August 1996, Christine Blasey Ford’s parents, Paula and Ralph Blasey, were foreclosed upon. Kavanaugh’s mom, Martha, was then serving as a judge on the Montgomery Country Circuit Court, and she ruled against Christine Ford’s parents.

3. That Ford is a Democrat who donates to left-wing causes, attended the anti-Trump March for Science, and previously signed an open letter challenging Trump’s border policy.

Ford is a political activist who has made dozens of donations to left-wing causes. According to OpenSecrets, she has made more than 60 donations to liberal causes, with almost four dozen to the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, alone. Ford also donated to the DNC, Hillary Clinton (more than 10 times), Bernie Sanders, and the progressive organizing group ActBlue.

Ford likewise attended the anti-Trump March for Science, where she wore a hat knitted like a human brain, but inspired by the feminist “pussy hats” worn at the Women’s Marches. Ford also added her name to an open letter from health professionals who argued the U.S. border policy resulting in temporary separation of some families was harmful to children’s development.

There’s no statute of limitations on sexual assault in Maryland, where she claims that the assault happened. Rather than go to the police, Ford went to Dianne Feinstein. If her accusations are true, she should immediately file a police report against Kavanaugh and take him to trial. If she doesn’t, perhaps that’s because she knows the consequences of filing a false police report.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service