|
Please note graph typo correction made on this graph from older version if you have copied it; The word under John Marshal was "Cannot abrogate new powers" and has been corrected in this graph to read "cannot arrogate any new powers" Please replace with corrected version.
To all State Chair Persons and Party Members:
This is the second issue of the American Patriot Party National News Letter.
In this issue we will be examining the fundamental foundations and reasoning to liberty and freedom, the need to abide by them, and the dangers inherent of venturing outside those fundamental principles, definitions and practices.
The rich history offered presents an interesting examination of freedom and liberty that you may not be aware of;
A history that establishes the long chain of events that eventually developed into the free society we have today.
Our government representatives, and people from other countries that wish to have the blessings of freedom, may wish to consider what it is that makes freedom free, and the understanding of what is and what makes liberty.
Sincerely,
Richard Taylor
Chair
American Patriot Party (.CC)
American Patriot Party of Oregon
Index
1.) History of Freedom and Liberty in the Making
If the reader is not acquainted with John Locke, he is the man whose "Essay Concerning The True Original,
Extent, and End of Civil Government, in 1689" (which see notations there), provided the foundations that our free society is based upon, and all but writing the Rights of the Colonists given to us by Samuel Adams ; This as Samuel Adams quoted John Locke throughout that document in numerous areas either word for word or in summarizing John Locke's Essay works which had been written some 82 years earlier.
John Locke also established the context of liberty that was drawn from by Thomas Jefferson to lay the groundworks of the Declaration of Independence and "the terms" on which the Declaration of separation was grounded;
Our summary would be incomplete not to include (Judicious) Richard Hooker (March 1554 November 3, 1600), whose extensive works studied by John Locke, had outlined toleration and inclusiveness defined in his Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie. Which massive works are free to download in .pdf format; Richard Hooker considerably influenced the development of Anglicanism. He was the co-founder (with Thomas Cranmer and Matthew Parker) of Anglican theological thought. It is easy to draw from his works the reasoning grasped by John Locke and Samuel Adams and all the founders of our free country and civil government.
Further study will find that Richard Hooker studied (Saint) Thomas Aquinas 1272 Who studied Aristotle (a student of Plato) as well as the Bible and teachings of Christ, and a prominent theologian of the Catholic Church. The works Thomas Aquinas is best-known are the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles; Thomas Aquinas mentor was Albertus Magnus, also known as Saint Albert the Great and Albert of Cologne who in 1254 Albertus was made provincial of the Dominican Order; Albertus Magnus was the first among medieval scholars to apply Aristotle's philosophy to Christian thought; A Dominican friar and priest achieving fame for his comprehensive knowledge of and advocacy for the peaceful coexistence of science and religion; Considered a great German philosopher and theologian of the Middle Ages. The lineage of men that established the practice of "Toleration" between church and church, church and man and church and state while retaining basic principles of God's law, God's reason and God's nature in the construction of Christian civil societies and their freedom based governments. These clarifications given are to be defined in the following.
I would recommend reading John Locke's Essay Concerning "The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government" 1689. It is this brief document that sets the foundations for defining liberty and freedom as understood by the founders. We have highlighted those contributions that are clearly seen within the Rights of the Colonists, Declaration of Independence and other documents related to on that page.
The Essay is reasonably short and takes only about about an hour or two to read....
You will, after starting, wish to study it longer and refer back to it as It is a rich document that underlines freedom and liberty's core and established foundations.
2.) Protection of Private Property is the End Purpose of Civil Government
There are some individual powers established by our founders that you will note by reading "The Absolute Rights of the Colonists", one being that neither person or representative are able to take private property without the individuals consent;
This is consistent with Locke's statement that property that can be taken by government or legislative without the consent of the person who owns the property would be as if the person would have no ownership in the property at all.
John Locke 137. Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of Nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases; he being in a much worse condition that is exposed to the arbitrary power of one man who has the command of a hundred thousand than he that is exposed to the arbitrary power of a hundred thousand single men, nobody being secure, that his will who has such a command is better than that of other men, though his force be a hundred thousand times stronger. And, therefore, whatever form the commonwealth is under, the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions, for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of Nature if they shall have armed one or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force them to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment, unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions. For all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law, and the rulers, too, kept within their due bounds, and not be tempted by the power they have in their hands to employ it to purposes, and by such measures as they would not have known, and own not willingly."
John Locke 138. Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from "any man any part of his property" "without his own consent". (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the preservation of "property" being the "end of government", and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the "end for which they entered into it"; "too gross an absurdity for any man to own". Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their "own" consent; without this they have "no property at all".
For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent.
Hence it is a "mistake" to think that the "supreme or legislative power" of "any commonwealth" can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. This is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists wholly or in part in assemblies which are variable, whose members upon the dissolution of the assembly are subjects under the common laws of their country, equally with the rest. But in governments where the legislative is in one lasting assembly, always in being, or in one man as in absolute monarchies, there is "danger still", that they will think themselves to have a distinct interest from the rest of the community, and so will be apt to increase their own riches and power by taking what they think fit from the people. For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from any private man what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he >>> thinks<<< good."
Where any individual or collective, including federal, state, city corporation, or other, deems they should have a right to an individuals property, or his rights; whatever they may be; they should prove that they in part and as a whole must be willing to first risk, or be, or have, removed willingly as much rights from themselves and their properties to accomplish the same end so as to make such an attempt void and unfruitful;
Or else purchase a freely consented and willingly granted "use" of such a person's rights they wish to utilize, by that person's free and consinsual offer of license for such use, while protecting that person's right to his rights or properties; before attempting to take them through condemnation; Which no one or more persons have a power to do in a free country; Which they themselves have entered into society for the same such protection of their own rights.
3.) Just Compensation is Not a License to Condemn
This did not change in the Constitution with the words "without just compensation" were one may attempt without justification as to the true intent of the founders;
This because when you read the Constitutional debates, that clause was a war powers act within the finite and very limited delegated powers the federal government, and not an excuse for either the local cities, counties, states or federal government to condemn or take lands by just compensation for its own or other parties causes which are not directly for the purpose of protecting that persons property from being taken.
This is because the sole purpose of civil government is to protect an individual's right to property.
I will repeat this because this is so important to understand.
The Purpose of Just Compensation is only to be used to protect that, or those properties under ownership of the individual being compensated, this should there be an attack upon "it";
It is not an excuse to subvert the purpose of protecting that property of the individual, and take it, whether in person, persons or representatives, for purposes they may think good.
Taking property and justly compensating a person for the use to protect his property can never be thought to be for the purpose of condemning without a person's willing consent; and, or keeping the property for personal or public use without that person's "willing" "consent".
This is whether or not it is "thought" to be as a "betterment" of society, as this would be the same as the person having no property at all. The "betterment" of society should never be confused with the first law of protecting society, when there is no danger to society present that directly "endangers the preservation" of society, which is for the sole purpose of protecting an individuals property;
This is because, one is for the taking for what another "thinks" is good for their perceived purposes, against the willing consent he who possesses a right to that property;
The other is for protecting the right of the person to be secure in his person against such attacks.
This is why "neither" person or legislative representative, as clearly outlined by both John Locke and Samuel Adams can ever be supposed to take a person's property without his willing consent; Or to create "designs" by which to take the property by other means.
Constitution Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of "law"; nor shall private property be taken for public "use", without "just compensation".
To loose life liberty or property, one must be criminal to loose, or else taking would be "ARBITRARY".
The subject of this amendment is referring to criminal offenses, "not" simple public will for public projects or other.
JUST COMPENSATION IS FOR PUBLIC "USE",
IT IS NOT CONDEMNATION INTO ANOTHER PARTIES OWNERSHIP! >>> IT IS TEMPORARY <<<
The Constitution is for national causes to provide for the general welfare, which is defined by the founders as "military protection against foreign invasion" or invasion of one state to another at the request of the state.
It is for the "protection" of private property, "not" for endangerment of a subjects property or excuse to condemn;
Constitutional Debates - MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.] :
George Nicholas "... But the "common law" is not excluded.
"There is >>> nothing <<< in "that paper" (APP Note: The US Constitution being debated) to warrant the assertion."
As shown, "common law" has not been voided by the Constitution;
What then does Common Law say about the taking of private property?:
John Locke 149. "....And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the "attempts" and "designs" of "anybody", even of their "legislators", whenever they shall be so "foolish" or so "wicked" as to lay and carry on "designs" against the liberties and "properties" of the subject. For no man or society of men having a power to deliver up their preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary "dominion" of another, whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with, and to "rid" themselves of "those" who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation "for which" they "entered" into "society". ..."
Rights of the Colonists 1772: Thirdly, The supreme power (i.e. Legislative) >>>cannot "Justly" take from "any man", "any part" of his "property"<<<>>> without his "consent", <<<>>> in person<<< >>>or by his "Representative".--<<<
John Locke (1689) 138. Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from "any man any part of his property" "without his own consent". (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the preservation of "property" being the "end of government", and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be "supposed to lose" that by entering into society which was the "end for which they entered into it"; "too gross an absurdity for any man to own". Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that "nobody" hath a right to take them, or "any part" of them, from them without their "own" "consent"; without this they have "no property at all".
For I have truly no property in that which another can >>>"by right"<<< take from me when he pleases "against my consent".
Hence it is a "mistake" to "think" that the "supreme or legislative power" of "any commonwealth" can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, >>>or<<< take >>>any part of them<<< at pleasure.
4.) Limits to Powers of Societies Against the Properties of the Individual
There is a limit to where any person or collective, whether community or legislative, attempts to deem they should have a right to an individuals property or to an individuals rights;
The person or collective should prove that they, in part or as a whole, must have no other way to obtain that which they feel is needed, with the same loss to the ownership of their own properties; and be willing to first risk or be or have removed willingly as much rights from their selves and their properties to accomplish the same end; A absurdity to such end that they cannot for themselves give up any more than the person they wish to take the property from.
Leaving anyone then who wishes use of an individuals property with only the offer to purchase a "willing consensual use" granted to them by the "individual" on a annual, or continual license granted to them under the sole dictates of and by the individual who owns the property so to benefit that individual during any contract, perpetually or until such time he is willing to sell; Thereby protecting that person's right to his rights or properties removing any "legal" attempt to take them through condemnation; Which those who desire someone else's property have entered society for the protection from such condemnation of their own rights and properties from others who would attempt the same.
"Condemnation" of property or rights being a clear arbitrary act against any right or property, and a subversion to the "purpose of society" which is to protect against any such acts of condemnation.
176. That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man's right, can, by such an unjust war, "never come to have a right over the conquered", will be easily agreed by all men, who will not think that robbers and pirates have a right of empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master, or that men are bound by promises which unlawful force extorts from them. Should a robber break into my house, and, with a dagger at my throat, make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title by his sword has an unjust conqueror who forces me into submission. The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villain. The title of the offender and the number of his followers make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones to keep them in their obedience; but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs, because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world, and have the power in their own possession which should punish offenders. What is my remedy against a robber that so broke into my house? Appeal to the law for justice. But perhaps justice is denied, or I am crippled and cannot stir; robbed, and have not the means to do it. If God has taken away all means of seeking remedy, there is nothing left but patience. But my son, when able, may seek the relief of the law, which I am denied; he or his son may renew his appeal till he recover his right. But the conquered, or their children, have no court -- no arbitrator on earth to appeal to. Then they may appeal, as Jephtha did, to Heaven, and repeat their appeal till they have recovered the native right of their ancestors, which was to have such a legislative over them as the majority should approve and freely acquiesce in. If it be objected this would cause endless trouble, I answer, no more than justice does, where she lies open to all that appeal to her. He that troubles his neighbour without a cause is punished for it by the justice of the court he appeals to. And he that appeals to Heaven must be sure he has right on his side, and a right, too, that is worth the trouble and cost of the appeal, as he will answer at a tribunal that cannot be deceived, and will be sure to retribute to every one according to the mischiefs he hath created to his fellow-subjects -- that is, any part of mankind. From whence it is plain that he that conquers in an unjust war can thereby have no title to the subjection and obedience of the conquered.
This is clear as to unjustly taking of property without ones willing consent.
Rights of the Colonists 1772: Thirdly, The supreme power (i.e. Legislative) >>>cannot "Justly" take from "any man", "any part" of his "property"<<<>>> without his "consent", <<<>>> in person<<< >>>or by his "Representative".--<<<
Not even by his representative.
This removes the power of any legislative to take, or condemn.
5.) True Purpose and Intent of "Just Compensation"
The reason for which this clause in the constitution was placed, is clearly defined in the Constitutional Debates where the British army would take land without the willing consent of either the individual or the local society.
Constitutional Debate:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Patrick Henry: If Congress shall say that the general welfare requires it, they may keep armies continually on foot. There is no control on Congress in raising or stationing them (APP Speaking of the Constitution being debated). They may billet them on the people at pleasure. This unlimited authority is a most dangerous power: its principles are despotic. If it be unbounded, it must lead to despotism; for the power of a people in a free government is supposed to be "paramount" to the existing power.
".... "Advert to the power thoroughly." One of our first complaints, under the former government, was the quartering of troops upon us. This was one of the principal reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain. Here (APP Note: Speaking of the Constitution being Debated) we may have troops in time of peace. They may be billeted in any manner to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us.
George Mason warns of mis-interpretation by the Federal Government
Mr. GEORGE MASON asked to what purpose the laws were read. The objection was, that too much power was given to Congress power that would finally destroy the state governments more effectually by insidious, underhanded means, than such as could be openly practiced. This, said he, is the opinion of many worthy men, not only in this Convention, but in all parts of America."
"...Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "this" government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the general welfare, and under their "own" construction, say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not extend their implication? It appears to me that they may and "will". And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the "general" welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are "retained by the states".
Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "perverted to its destruction".
.... Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to any power Congress may please."
Important APP Note: This "general welfare" described by George Mason, is explained in the Constitutional debates as a limited military federal protection against armed foreign invasion, or, protection by other states to be secure from invasion by other states, but in this last case, only at the request of that state.
The "Perversion" he speaks of, is the federal government using the term broadly and outside that very limited definition.
Mr. GEORGE MASON "still thought that there ought to be some express declaration in the Constitution, asserting that rights not given to the general government were retained by the states. He apprehended that, unless this was done, many valuable and important rights would be concluded to be given up by implication." ... "that "artful sophistry and evasions could not satisfy him". He could see no clear distinction between rights relinquished by a positive grant, and lost by implication. Unless there were a bill of rights, implication might "swallow up all our rights".
James Madison Warns of the Dangers of the Federal Government broadly interpreting the limited delegated powers.
"If that "latitude of construction" which he (Patrick Henry) contends for were to take place with respect to the sweeping clause, there "would be" room for "those horrors". But it gives "no" supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the "delegated" powers.
For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it."
This is clear to establish that, if a power is not delegated to the federal government, the federal government, or the legislative of it, they cannot even contemplate it.
6.) Government's Misuse of General "Terms" and "Words"
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warn against the federal government misusing "terms" and "words" within the Constitution to expand the powers of the federal government beyond its limited delegated powers.
Here is a very interesting event in history where the "intent" of the founders are clearly established.
James Madison, having had great optimism in the Constitution, is placed in a position to have to realize the dangers that Patrick Henry and George Mason warned of; Having them coming true during John Adam's presidential reign.
The Alien and Sedition acts and other attempts of federal powers result in James Madison leaving the Federalists and joining Thomas Jefferson and the "Democratic Republicans" in writing the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
Here, "pay special attention" to what they are saying about the federal government misusing and exploiting what were "general" "TERMS" and "WORDS" in the Constitutions language to grasp at powers that were not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution:
Virginia Resolution of 1798:
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison: "...That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "compact"; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants "enumerated" in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the "evil", and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to "enlarge its powers" by "forced constructions" of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a "design" to expound certain general "phrases" (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular "enumeration" which necessarily explains and limits the "general phrases"; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into "one sovereignty", the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to "transform" the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.
So here we have clear intention of those who wrote our Declaration of Independence and created our Constitution, and these intentions clearly establish that we are:
1.) Not "one Nation" as through federal propaganda attempts, but 50 independent nation states that are in full control of a very limited and subordinate federal government with very limited "delegated" powers it cannot exceed what so ever.
2.) Presented also here by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison is that the Misusing general PHRASES in an attempt to CONSOLIDATE the states into ONE SOVEREIGNTY, is an ACT of "EVIL" which is clearly against the intent of the founders and against the intent of the Constitution itself.
3.) Further, it changes the original intent of the legislative when it was created. And this, when it occurs, as clearly established by John Locke 227, (see below following insert) Automatically Disolves the Legislative and the government that was formed under the consent of the people who formed it; As does occur when the standing legislature established to protect the people and their properties gives the people up to a foreign power....
It looses all authority, and the people of that legislature, are as individuals with no authority,
The citizens, and each individual, are then without any government (Locke 220), and fully within the state of nature for which all may choose and construct a new legislative and government to their own choosing without references of states or other constructs from the original compact that was disolved.
Therefor least the states maintain full legislative powers over the federal government and keep it within its delegated powers, all governments, county, state and federal, loose all authority and put themselves into a state of war with the people.
Kentucky Resolution of 1798
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison: 1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for "special purposes" — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are "unauthoritative", "void", and of "no force": that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made "its" discretion, and not "the Constitution", the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
"the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and that "no" power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people:
7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and "general welfare" of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers "vested" by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that >>>"words"<<< meant by the instrument to be subsidiary "only" to the execution of "limited powers", "ought not to be so construed" as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress..
8th. "...that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a "nullification of the act is the rightful remedy": that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to "nullify" of their "own authority" all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and "solely authorized to judge" in the "last resort of the powers exercised under it",
Congress being "not a party", but "merely" the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of "those by whom", and "for" "whose" use itself and its powers were all created and modified: ..."
If you did not catch the meaning of these last sentences, we will exploit the meaning, so that it is not passed by.
It clearly establishes that the "States" outside the legislative powers of the federal government have the power of oversight to insure the actions of those empowered by the compact; or what is here described as the US Constitution.
This is a governor, state legislative, local county and people power and duty - outside of the federal legislative, to insure the proper operation of the US Constitution and limit the federal government to its very limited "delegated" powers.
This power of the states and people is clearly described by James Madison and George Nicholas as they clearly establish this intention and fact in the Constitutional Debates:
Constitutional Debates:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
James Madison: "... An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to.*** If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we "should choose to renounce {415} it", "this is an additional safeguard to our defence"
George Nicholas: "...He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers, the judiciary will declare it void, or else "the people" will have a "right" to "declare it" " void"
If the federal legislature exceeds it's delegated powers, it is void.
7.) Common Law Rights Reserved
and Not Effected By the Constitution
The establishing of the basic fundamentals of liberty and freedom, through foundations in common natural law, being transferred, without diminishment of individual rights, into the foundations of the United States, the State Constitutions and the US Constitution, are clear in the founder's written intents:
Constitutional Debates - MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.] :
To Patrick Henry's favor to the continuation of "common law", these statements establish it remains today:
George Nicholas: "... But why were the articles of the bill of rights read? Let him show us that those rights are given up by the Constitution. Let him prove them to be violated."
George Nicholas "... But the "common law" is not excluded. There is >>> nothing <<< in "that paper" (APP Note: The US Constitution being debated) to warrant the assertion."
Patrick Henry: "....When fortified with full, adequate, and abundant representation, was she satisfied with that representation? No. She most cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured those invaluable, inestimable rights and privileges, which no people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty, ever did, >>>or ever can, abandon<<<."
"A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? That our rights are reserved."
8.) Freedoms and Liberties Defined
Often we find freedom and liberty mislabeled;
How often have you heard the media present that freedom or liberty "can mean many things to many people"; And for things that are within the perimeters of the "actual definition", this would be true;
However, when things are removed outside of the "actual definition", to do "whatever one lists", it becomes "a falsehood"; and a dangerous precedence to allow to be set where both liberty and freedom are concerned.
We will present two quotes which define "liberty". These quotes are from John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within "limits" drawn around us by the equal "rights" of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the "rights" of the individual~~"
John Locke:
59. This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of Nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, an estate wherein he might be supposed capable to "know" "that law", that so he might keep his actions "within the bounds of it". When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it;
63. The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having "reason", which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will.
Jefferson's quote "seems" to grant greater degree, but this would be an incomplete observation, it is only because there are things that Jefferson takes for granted that most Americans are not aware of and are not educated in; and these are the "laws of God and Nature", common law, defining "those natural" "rights" Jefferson is speaking of; and "liberties", which in "natural law" are defined "as" the "basis" "for" and the ability "to" that "reason" spoke of.
Jefferson is speaking of arbitrary laws with regard to tyrants; and his statement on rightful liberties and equal rights is that of "natural law" or "The Law of Nature" which defines those "inalienable rights and liberties" that are "defined" rights and liberties.
Here there is no contradiction because one does not give up completely the law of nature when he enters free society, as established by John Locke, but retains it as with others. Society only being a means to protect all persons within that society and their rights, liberties and properties.
9.) Law of Nature, Civil Society and the Original Compact
This is explained by John Locke and is more clearly summarized by Samuel Adams in the Rights of the Colonists:
Samuel Adams - Rights of the Colonists:
All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intolerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.--
When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable "original compact".--
Every natural Right not "expressly" given up or from the nature of a Social Compact "necessarily" ceded "remains".--
"In the "state" of nature, every man is under God, Judge and sole Judge, of his own rights and the injuries done him:
By entering into society, he "agrees to an Arbiter" or "indifferent Judge" between him and his neighbours;
but he no more renounces his "original right", than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law,"
Here is how John Locke describes it:
John Locke 131. "But "though" men when they enter into society give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the "state" of Nature into the hands of the society, to be "so far" disposed of by the legislative as the good of the society shall require, yet it being "only" "with an intention" in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse), the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one's property "by providing against those three defects" above mentioned that made the state of Nature so unsafe and uneasy.
(APP: See Locke with regard to the three defects of the "state" of nature)
And so, whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, "promulgated" and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees, by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety, and public good of the people."
10.) Stepping from the "State" of Nature,
into Society which respects the "Law" of Nature
The state of nature is where each man is free to fend for himself.
The state of nature becomes dangerous when there are those who disregard the rights of others.
John Locke presents it this way:
John Locke 128. For in the state of Nature to omit the liberty he has of innocent delights, a man has two powers. The first is to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permission of the law of Nature; by which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society distinct from all other creatures, and "were it not for the corruption and viciousness" of "degenerate men", there would be no need of any other, no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and associate into lesser combinations. The other power a man has in the state of Nature is the power to punish the crimes committed against that law. Both these he gives up when he joins in a private, if I may so call it, or particular political society, and incorporates into any commonwealth separate from the rest of mankind.
John Locke 129. The first power- viz., of doing whatsoever he thought fit for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself and the rest of that society shall require; which laws of the society in many things confine the liberty he had by the law of Nature.
John Locke 130. Secondly, the power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force, which he might before employ in the execution of the law of Nature, by his own single authority, as he thought fit, to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require.
|
