|
American Patriot Party
State Chair Endorsement Statements Principles of the Endorsement 
American Patriot Party of Oregon
Endorsement for President and Congress:
RON PAUL The American Patriot Party of Oregon wishes to convey our support for Ron Paul in his bid for the presidency and in other events his reelection to congress.
Understanding that the federal government is very limited in power, having not been intended to be used outside those very limited powers; Nor to subject states, local counties or people to it's undelegated national or international policies and mandates, is the first step to the reinstitution our rights and liberties.
Ron Paul's stance to reduce the federal governments encroachment on states, local community powers and personal property rights coincides with our own.
Our endorsement comes from establishing a comparison between the historical foundations, the intents of the founders and the mutual stands taken by our party and this candidate;
Below find our reasoning, documentation and statements to this endorsement.
Index:
1.) Endorsement Questionnaire presented to Ron Paul and Answers Received.
2.) American Patriot Party Agreements to Ron Paul On Taxes
3.) American Patriot Party Agreements to Ron Paul On Private Property
4.) American Patriot Party Agreements to Ron Paul On War and Military Engagements
5.) Unauthorized Federal Action
6.) Federal Actions Outside Military Powers
7.) Constitutional Limits to Policing Powers
8.) Futility of Training Foreign Police and Military without Freedom's Laws
1.) Endorsement Questionnaire and Answers Received Earlier, the American Patriot Party had sent a questionnaire to Ron Paul.
Below please find the answers to our inquiry.
----------
Subject: American Patriot Party - Ron Paul Campaign - Endorsement
Questionnaire
Ron Paul
c/o Brandon
Ron Paul 2008 Campaign
3461 Washington Blvd.
Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22201
Dear Brandon: As you have requested, below is a questionnaire, requesting as to where Ron Paul stands on a few issues so that we may be more at ease in considering our endorsement:
----------
Dear Representative Ron Paul:
Below are our stands and few questions we would like to have answered with regard to them for our decision to endorse you for the presidency.
Our party promotes The Anonymity Tax, a No Names No Numbers (anonymous) toll tax system for the states and counties http://www.pacificwestcom.com/patriottax, and import tax collected by the states for the federal government at ports of call which will effectively divide federal taxes away from US citizens, remove the IRS, cut 50% of regulatory tax burdens, remove 95% compliance costs (nearing 295 billion by 2006 Tax Foundation reports <http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1962.html>), criminal infractions and incarceration costs.
We have also noticed that you use the term "inflation tax" description, which is described by many as to who actually pays the "tax burden"; You may be well aware that manipulation of prices and reduced manufacturing costs by either down sizing or over seas manufacture, even when not in an inflation, can result in the same event as to maintaining profits and still transferring the entire burden of the tax, through the tax inclusion in the merchandise price, down to the lowest income persons who cannot defer the tax further;
It generally presents that the present income tax system does not work, as the harder you tax the wealthy, the harder you actually tax the poor; The wealthiest may hand the tax dollar to government, but the dollar is derived by the consumer that cannot further defer the tax.
We look at the problem actually being "the overall burden" of federal bureaucracy; created by regulation and the cost of collecting taxes itself as presented by the Heritage Foundation Report <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM459.cfm> as it takes 50% to collect the other 50% - 677 billion to collect 700 billion in direct taxation.
Heritage Foundation: "While there is much debate about federal taxes, spending, and the need to balance the budget, considerably less is known and understood about the benefits and burdens of regulation. Unlike federal tax and spending programs, no comprehensive cost accounting system exists for regulation. But regulatory costs -- $677 billion in 1996 -- are nearly one-half the cost of direct taxation. And the economic impact is significant; according to one estimate, federal regulations cause $1.3 trillion in U.S. economic activity to be lost each year."
We agree as to the problem, however we are not sure if we agree with the solution; Ours is to simply reduce the overall burden of federal government bureaucracy first by placing a freeze on any new hiring of nonessential federal agencies then transferring federal bureaucracies as much as possible into the hands of the local communities to manage or remove as they see fit. Then establish the Anonymity tax system.
Your speeches seem to establish your removal of the Income Tax (and IRS ?), but do not detail the removal and tax division as we have presented in our tax system proposal. Please see our Anonymity Tax <http://www.pacificwestcom.com/patriottax> solution to remove the powers and costly bureaucracy of the IRS and it's invasiveness. Your comments on this and your own proposed solutions would be appreciated.
We are opposed to any type of flat tax as it maintains a bureaucracy to regulate and enforce, which in turn maintains the cost and burden of such regulation and enforcement, including the huge compliance costs, and legal costs to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate - which includes legal actions, court costs and medical of prisoners while incarcerated.
1.) Will Ron Paul limit the income derived for operation of the federal government solely to a import tax collected by the states?
Answer given: This is not determined yet. Dr. Paul would have to spend more time reviewing the proposal for this tax, but it is clear that the Founders preferred import taxes to income taxes. (This was all we had expected on this question; see below for Ron Paul campaign reply letter)
2.) Will Ron Paul work to remove all forms of Federal tax "collection" by the federal government from the people "within" the United States?
Answer given: Yes (see below for Ron Paul campaign reply letter)
3.) Will Ron Paul remove the IRS and its regulations from with the states.?
Answer given: Yes (see below for Ron Paul campaign reply letter)
Further we propose transfer of all federal lands within the states except for necessary military bases to the ownership of counties, free of any encumbrances (National Monuments can carry a no sale covenant, but cannot be enlarged in the land mass; as the National Monuments, including those under presidential proclamations will revert to what was encompassed in 1985 and no later. This would remove the Bureau of Land Management in it's entirety, leaving counties to manage the lands as the see fit.
This would be coupled prior to such transfer with a sale of federal lands to actual individuals only (not fictitious individuals such as corporations), with a land covenant that the land cannot be borrowed against in any way or indebted by government through taxes or other, cannot be combined to form greater lots, cannot be sold into collectives (corporations, unions, special interests, land grants or government monuments or any other consumption away from the individual citizens); It can be divided and sold however to other actual individuals who have not yet acquired such lands offered. Thereby removing land grabs from any such collectives and insuring expanse and solid foundations for private property ownerships to actual individuals. This will also greatly reduce the federal bureaucracy and federal burden.
4.) Will Ron Paul work to place federal lands, as presented above, into the ownership, control and management of the counties and local county legislatures.
Answer given: Yes (see below for Ron Paul campaign reply letter)
5.) Will Ron Paul make more federal lands available to citizens.
Answer given: Yes (see below for Ron Paul campaign reply letter)
We also propose removal of zoning, EPA (While retaining State controlled DEQ) and federal involvement of other manipulations, such as withholding highway or other funds that bribe states to comply with federal mandates (such as environmental mandates) along with removing other harsh restrictions on free enterprise that force free enterprise who are not able or willing to compete, into an ever expanding federal (or state) bureaucracies - which "creates" it's own limitations - which by federal practice, amounts to no limitation at all. Our stand is not to give the money for highways (and other federal past projects in the states) to the federal government in the first place, making it a state responsibility, then the states will not have to beg for the money or be bribed to follow federal mandates to get it back.
Our question to you is:
6.) How you will remove federal control over states on this, and other issues, that manipulate into compliance state and local communities, such federal mandates, that by taxes take money from citizens, then withhold money until they comply;
Will Ron Paul also work remove federal and international bribery and manipulation of states, local communities and their legislatures to comply with federal mandates - through taxation or other means?
Answer given: Yes. Dr. Paul would work to remove federal control by cutting taxes, cutting bureaucracy, and devolving/keeping programs to/at the state and local level. (see below for Ron Paul campaign reply letter)
7.) Will Ron Paul work to transfer all non constitutionally delegated, non essential and non military federal agencies outside Washington D.C., into the hands and employment of the local counties for the local county legislatures to determine and decide whether or not they are necessary in their community, the extent of their operation under county employment and pay (which will be directly derived from the county), continuation, and benefits?
Answer given: Yes (see below for Ron Paul campaign reply letter)
The above seven questions we would like a response.
Sincerely,
Richard Taylor
Chair
American Patriot Party (.CC)
American Patriot Party of Oregon
--------
Ron Paul campaign reply letter
2-7-2008 7:38 PM
Richard,
....In regards to the seven questions:
1.) This is not determined yet. Dr. Paul would have to spend more time reviewing the proposal for this tax, but it is clear that the Founders preferred import taxes to income taxes.
2.)-5.) Yes.
6.) Yes. Dr. Paul would work to remove federal control by cutting taxes, cutting bureaucracy, and devolving/keeping programs to/at the state and local level.
7.) Yes.
I hope these answers help as you make your decision.
Matthew Hawes
Ron Paul 2008
3461 Washington Blvd, Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22201
2.) On Taxes
Ron Paul's 30 year track record of voting not to raise taxes and his goal to reduce the size federal government, remove income tax, remove the IRS, and to limit government spending so that the burden of taxation is reduced shows a high level of principle.
The reduction of the federal burden in regulations and bureaucracy, clearly is the only real way to reduce taxes.
Reducing government payrolls and undelegated programs in combination with removing regulations on the private sector that are presently stifling true independent business growth in the free market, is the only real way removing dependency and increasing independence and self sufficiency.
Ron Paul's track record and dedication to the principles of the Constitution has earned our confidence in his being the best choice of candidate for our country.
The 17th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence along with numerous other documents, including The Rights of the Colonists and John Locke 140, 149; establish taxation without "consent" of the individual is the act of a tyrannical government.
The first basis of consent in taxation of property and person was defined by John Locke read in this way:
John Locke 140. (1689) It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance "of it".
But still it must be with his "own consent" -- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it "either" by themselves or their representatives chosen "by them"; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such "consent of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of property", and "subverts the end of government". For what property have I in that which another may by "right" take when he pleases to himself?
John Locke 142: "...Thirdly: They must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people given by themselves or their deputies.
Note that the word "either" by themselves or their representatives, (Deputies) shows the closeness of that representation.
Often people consider the representative to act as if he was given on his own personal decision on issues, however this would change the meaning of representation, from representing the consensual will of the people the representative is supposed to convey and establish, to the arbitrary opinion of the representative. This had happened when the colonies had representatives to their colonies adversely representing them in Britain.
It is crucial to understand this difference; and to understand the purpose and need for very localized, personal representation and localized legislators.
It is Distant Legislation that endangers freedom and liberty. See concerns of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison with regard to transforming the states into a consolidated government:
Virginia Resolution 1798: "......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."
John Locke's "Third Point", was changed, or more clearly defined, by Samuel Adams and our founders to limit misuses of "large districts of area" and distant legislatures (which see) that could not possess the adequate representation of local interests or actual consent.
The Difference to Locke, in freedom, was rightly altered, or better defined, because collective powers had continually abused individual rights to property;
(Note that Britain in itself in size is very small, where representation is better served)
This is defined clearly in the Rights of the Colonists in 1772, when Samuel Adams establishes the change in the definition of "CONSENT" when he summarized and refined John Locke's treaties on Civil Government to describe the barriers established in truly free governments with regard to property:
Rights of the Colonists:
"Thirdly, The supreme power "cannot" "Justly" take from "any" man, "any" "part" of his "property" without his "consent", in person >>>"or" by his Representative.--"<<<"
"These are some of the first principles of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all >>>free<<< states,"
This important definition of consent and of freedom, removes the "collective powers of the general representative chosen by the majority" over private property without the individual's explicit personal "consent".
This is the definition of "consent" that was presented in the Declaration of Independence.
Declaration of Independence 1776: 17th Grievance - Defining Tyranny in Government:
"He has taxed us without our consent."
Samuel Adams and John Locke's definitions actually do not conflict, as in common law (rights still reserved - as the Constitution does not alter them - See George Nicholas) land cannot be justly indebted by government past the ability to pay a tax, as the legislative is prohibited from designingly impoverishing the people or creating "designs" to take property, by which society's end purpose is to protect;
The "Great Barriers" spoken of by Samuel Adams, refers to John Locke's "Guards and Fences":
John Locke 222: The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their "property"; and the end while they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as "guards" and "fences" to the properties of all the society, to limit the "power" and moderate the "dominion" of every part and member of the society.
For since it can >>>"never" be supposed<<< to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one >>>designs to secure<<< by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making:
"whenever" the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the "property" of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a "state of war with the people",
who are thereupon absolved from "any farther obedience", and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall "transgress" this fundamental rule of society,"
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". ...
All taxation, not enumerated, nor consensual, extracted from the citizenry from income and other means, pooling money for unlimited undelegated government programs is unconstitutional and should be completely removed, abolished and further designs prohibited.
So long as the legislatures, state or federal, continue to act beyond the original delegated powers of the original compact of which it was created and instituted, tax without authority, design undelegated bureaucracies, or impoverish by way of unlimited undelegated powers, they the legislative and those that involve themselves with such actions in any way or form, as clearly established by John Locke, are engaged in active warfare against the citizens.
Such undelegated and forced taxation has nothing to do with freedom;
John Locke: 186. "The conqueror, it is true, usually by the force he has over them, compels them, with a sword at their breasts, to stoop to his conditions, and submit to such a government as he pleases to afford them; but the inquiry is, what right he has to do so? If it be said they submit by their own consent, then this allows their own consent to be necessary to give the conqueror a title to rule over them. It remains only to be considered whether promises, extorted by force, >>>"without right"<<<, can be "thought consent", and how far they "bind".
To which I shall say, >>>"they bind not at all"<<<; because >>>"whatsoever"<<< >>>"another"<<< >>>>>>>>gets from me "by force"<<<<<<<<, (APP Note: Without Consent)
I still retain the right of, and he is obliged presently to restore. He that forces my horse from me ought presently to restore him, and I have still a right to retake him.
By the same reason, he that forced a promise from me ought presently to restore it -- i.e., quit me of the obligation of it; or I may resume it myself -- i.e., choose whether I will perform it.
For the law of Nature laying an obligation on me, only by the rules she prescribes, "cannot oblige me" by the violation of her rules; such is the "extorting" >>>"anything" from me "by force"<<<.
Nor does it "at all" alter the case, to say I gave my promise, no more than it excuses the force, and passes the right, when I put my hand in my pocket and deliver my purse myself to a thief who demands it with a pistol at my breast."
3.) On Private Property
Taxing land, limiting its use, or finding other ways government may control or reacquire lands already deeded into ownership of individuals; or establishing other ways to extort money from citizens at risk of loss of property, or take from any citizen any part of his property without his consent, by person "or representative" is clearly prohibited and against the purpose of government which end is for the protection of private property.
See Rights of the Colonists and John Locke 138, 139 140, 142, 194, 201, 202 ;
Rights of the Colonists:
"Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person >>>"or by his Representative.--"<<<"
"These are some of the first principles of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all >>>free<<< states,"
4.) On War and Military Engagements
Our concurrence to Ron Paul's stand to abide by the laws of the Constitution, and not engage in military actions without a Declaration of War, is clearly established in the Constitution and is the intent of the Founders.
This does not override the fact that the federal government or independent state can engage in war when attacked or in imminent danger;
Nor does it conflict with a non interventionism policy that we share.
These are defensive powers clearly intended and defined by the founders in the Constitutional debates that both state and federal possess for the preservation of our free and independent societies.
However, once the imminent danger has passed where the legislatures can convene, it becomes the responsibility of the legislatures both state and federal to establish a Declaration of War to authorize continuation of hostilities.
This wise procedure of our founders establishes a clear thought out position before continuing actions allows a specific goal to be achieved.
We believe that if men are to sacrifice their lives for a just law and take enemy lives because the enemy willingly oppose just law; or that our soldiers should kill those that are forced to fight an die for their leaders that oppose a just law, our legislature should abide by that just Constitutional law when set upon by an enemy, declare war, win it, and establish a truly free state or states as a condition of the enemy's surrender.
As for liberation:
Our party is not opposed to "truly" liberating a "willing" country of oppressed citizens into a free republic of numerous localized and powerful local representative legislatures with state constitutions, so it's civilians can keep any national central government in check with a like Constitution as our own.
It was by the assistance of France that we were able to secure our own liberty; It is an honorable affinity by the Independent and United States to strengthen those who wish to obtain the "same" freedoms as our country possesses.
We are adamantly opposed to "falsely" liberating a country, by placing the people back into another socialist central national government or British styled or other "total democracy"; without the checks, balances and inalienable rights our own countries founders had placed.
When we fight for a peoples freedom and liberty, it should be to actually free them by educating and empowering the individuals; not throw them back into the hands of another ruling class.
So far, the present administration appears to be doing just that.
See our party proposal for Iraq.
5.) On Unauthorized Federal Action
Both the President and all legislatures are bound in their positions to abide by the Laws for which they have been elected to uphold under the original compact that their positions where first created.
John Locke 200: "...The king binds himself, by a double oath, to the observation of the "fundamental laws" of his kingdom -- tacitly, as by being a king, and so bound to protect, as well the people as the "laws" of his kingdom;..."
"...And therefore a king, governing in a settled kingdom, leaves to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws." And a little after: "Therefore, all kings that are not tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws, and they that persuade them the contrary are vipers, pests, both against them and the commonwealth." Thus, that learned king, who well understood the notions of things, makes the difference betwixt a king and a tyrant to consist only in this: that one makes the laws the bounds of his power and the good of the public the end of his government; the other makes all give way to his own will and appetite."
John Locke 201. >>>"It is a mistake to think"<<< this fault is proper only to monarchies.
>>>"Other forms of government"<<< are liable to it >>>"as well as that"<<<; for "wherever the power" that is put in "any hands" for the "government of the people" and the preservation of their "properties" is applied to "other ends", and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are "one or many". Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better.
John Locke 202: Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed >>>to "another's harm"<<<; and whosoever in authority "exceeds the power" given him by "the law", and makes "use" of the "force" he has "under his command" to compass that upon the subject which the law "allows not", "ceases" in "that" to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as "any other man" who by force invades the right of >>>"another"<<<.
This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street may be opposed as a "thief and a robber" if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, "notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant and such a legal authority as will empower him to arrest me abroad". And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brothers' portions? Or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbour?
The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason for rapine and oppression, which the "endamaging another without authority is", that it is a great aggravation of it.
For exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great than a petty officer, no more justifiable in a king than a constable. But so much the worse in him as that he has more trust put in him, is supposed, from the advantage of education and counsellors, to have better knowledge and less reason to do it, having already a greater share than the rest of his brethren.
Just as importantly, there is a common law of reason which establishes when aggression must be halted or else it becomes a unjust unauthorized act of a conquering tyrant.
See John Locke:
177 - 196 Of Conquest - Unlawful and Lawful and
211 - 243 Of Dissolution of Government
6.) Federal Actions Outside the Limited Delegated Powers
When the federal legislative and federal government begins to act in its own powers and not from the powers directed by the very limited delegated powers, it's acts are unauthorized, unathoritive and void.
Here, Thomas Jefferson, who author the Declaration of Independence; and James Madison Co-Author of the Constitution, define this as a true statement as to the intent of the Constitution both from the Constitutional debates and when they both wrote the the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
Virginia Resolution:
"That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose "every infraction" of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a "faithful observance" of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.
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.
"... 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".
That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power "no where delegated" to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right
Kentucky Resolution:
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...."
To ignore the intent set by these original authors, would be to attempt dissolution of the entire Constitution.
Or as John Locke 227 presents, The "Umpirage" is removed when the legislature acts contrary to the end they "were" constituted, destroying the authority given to them by the consent of the people."
It is clear that the Constitution was never ment to be distorted to the extent that the president, federal government or legislature would be able to act without authorization by the states or beyond the limits set by the Constitution.
George Mason: "...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."
7.) On Constitutional Limits to Police Powers
Ron Paul has also presented that he intends to move the CIA into a branch of the military.
To this we concur, because "policing" is something clearly established by the Constitutional Debates to be a limited power for specific purposes, and that is to maintain order in Washington DC so that the Legislative can go about its business without being harassed specifically in that place;
This policing power is very limited and for a defined purpose.
Policing or using policing powers to execute laws of the union is specifically prohibited outside the Ten Miles Square of Washington DC (See Exert from the Constitutional Debates Below):
This can also be seen as a prohibition of policing "outside the country" when not part of the armed forces and when War has not been Declared.
The founders had set some clear boundaries as to what powers the federal government had, and did not have, with regard to federal policing outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC.
Here I will insert a portion copied from our web site of that Constitutional debate for your review that establishes the intent of the founders, and in turn, defines the intent of the law.
This was outlined in the Constitutional debates, a highlighted and APP study of the complete day debate in Virginia is presented in our 2006 news letter, The Division of Power.
Constitutional Debate: MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Mr. (George) MASON then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive power, as far as respected the "police" and good government of "the place"; but he would give them "no more", because he thought it unnecessary. He was very willing to give them, in this as well as in all other cases, those powers which he thought indispensably necessary.
Mr. (James) MADISON. Mr. Chairman: "I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary to say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me ask whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers. I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "small district", which "cannot exceed" "ten miles square",
and may "not be more than one mile", will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man,
I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant "exclusive advantages", in a very >>>"circumscribed district"<<<, to the prejudice of the community at large." ....
"I believe the States General have no jurisdiction over the Hague; but I have heard that mentioned as a circumstance which gave undue influence to Holland over the rest. We must limit our apprehensions to certain degrees of probability. The evils which they urge must result from this clause are extremely improbable; nay, "almost" impossible."
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, one answer which has been given is, the improbability of the evil that it will never be attempted, and that it is almost impossible. This will not satisfy us, when we consider the great attachments men have to a great and "magnificent capital" (APP: Speaking of Washington DC and a national government). It would be the interest of the citizens of that district to aggrandize themselves by every possible means in their power, to the great injury of the other states. (APP: Quite a revelation) If we travel all over the world, we shall find that people have aggrandized their own capitals. Look at Russia and Prussia. Every step has been taken to aggrandize their capitals.
In what light are we to consider the ten miles square?..."
".....It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government;"
"but they "never" had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases. The power of regulating the police and good government of it will secure Congress against insults. What originated the idea of the exclusive legislation was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, it is supposed, they left the state." (APP Note: This describes where the purpose of police powers was derived, a very limited purpose)
".....It is answered that the consent of the state must be required, or else they cannot have such a district, or places for the erecting of forts,
But how much is already >>> "given" "them"!<<< (APP Note: The States gave them) Look at the great country to the north-west of the Ohio, extending to and commanding the lakes."
Look at the other end of the Ohio, towards South Carolina, extending to the Mississippi. See what these, in process of time, may amount to. They may grant "exclusive privileges" to any particular part of which they have the "possession". (APP Note: Undelegated federal laws, enforcement and powers within the boarders of independent states, federal pay, federal union jobs, federal monuments, non profits, prevailing wages and benefits)
But it may be observed that those extensive countries will be formed into independent states, and that their consent will be necessary.
To this I answer, that they may still grant such privileges as, in that country, are already granted to Congress by the states. The grants of Virginia, South Carolina, and other states, will be subservient to Congress in this respect. Of course, it results from the whole, that requiring the consent of the states will be no guard against this abuse of power."
Mr. HENRY entertained strong suspicions that great dangers must result from the clause under consideration. They were not removed, but rather confirmed, by the remarks of the honorable gentleman, in saying that it was extremely improbable that the members from New Hampshire and Georgia would go and legislate exclusively for the ten miles square.
If it was so improbable, why ask the power? Why demand a power which was not to be exercised? Compare this power, says he, with the next clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary to carry their laws into execution. By this they have a right to pass any law that may facilitate the execution of their acts. They have a right, by this clause, to make a law that such a district shall be set apart for any purpose they please, and that any man who shall act contrary to their commands, within certain ten miles square, or any place they may select, and strongholds, shall be hanged without benefit of clergy. If they think any law necessary for their personal safety, after perpetrating the most tyrannical and oppressive deeds, cannot they make it by this sweeping clause? If it be necessary to provide, not only for this, but for any department or officer of Congress, does not this clause enable them to make a law for the purpose? And will not these laws, made for those purposes, be paramount to the laws of the states? Will not this clause give them a right to keep a powerful army continually on foot, if they think it necessary to aid the execution of their laws?
Is there any act, however atrocious, which they cannot do by virtue of this clause? Look at the use which has been made, in all parts of the world, of that human thing called power. Look at the predominant thirst of dominion which has invariably and uniformly prompted rulers to abuse their powers.
Can you say that you will be safe when you give such unlimited powers, {437} without any real responsibility? Will you be safe when you trust men at Philadelphia with power to make any law that will enable them to carry their acts into execution? Will not the members of Congress have the same passions which other rulers have had?
They will not be superior to the frailties of human nature. However cautious you may be in the selection of your representatives, it will be dangerous to trust them with such unbounded powers. Shall we be told, when about to grant such illimitable authority, that it will never be exercised!
I conjure you once more to remember the admonition of that sage man who told you that, when you give power, you know not what you give. I know the absolute necessity of an energetic government.
But is it consistent with any principle of prudence or good policy to grant unlimited, unbounded authority, which is so totally unnecessary that gentlemen say it will never be exercised? But gentlemen say that we must make experiments.
A wonderful and unheard-of experiment it will be, to give "unlimited power unnecessarily!" I admit my inferiority in point of historical knowledge; but I believe no man can produce an instance of an unnecessary and unlimited power, given to a body independent of the legislature, within a particular district. Let any man in this Convention show me an instance of such separate and different powers of legislation in the same country show me an instance where a part of the community was independent of the whole.
The people within that place, and the strongholds, may be excused from all the burdens imposed on the rest of the society, and may enjoy exclusive emoluments, to the great injury of the rest of the people.
But gentlemen say that the power will not he abused. They ought to show that it is necessary. All their powers may be fully carried into execution, without this exclusive authority in the ten miles square.
The sweeping clause will fully enable them to do what they please. What could the most extravagant and boundless imagination ask, but power to do every thing?
I have reason to suspect ambitious grasps at power. The experience of the world teaches me the jeopardy of giving enormous power. Strike this clause out of the form of the government, and how will it stand? Congress will still have power, by the sweeping clause, to make laws within that {438} place and the strongholds, independently of the local authority of the state. I ask you, if this clause be struck out, whether the sweeping clause will not enable them to protect themselves from insult. If you grant them these powers, you destroy every degree of responsibility. They will fully screen them from justice, and preclude the possibility of punishing them. No instance can be given of such a wanton grasp of power as an exclusive legislation in all cases whatever.
MR. MADISON: "....The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. >>> "If that latitude of construction"<<< which he 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.
If the "delegation" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause.
It is at most "but" explanatory. For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves "authority" to make laws to execute it. Were it possible to delineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances in which legislation by the general legislature would be necessary, and leave to the states all the other powers, I imagine no gentleman would object to it. But this is not within the limits of human capacity.
The particular powers which are found necessary to be given {439} are therefore delegated "generally", and particular and minute specification is left to the legislature...
.."When the honorable member objects to giving the general government jurisdiction over the "place" of their session, does he mean that it should be under the control of any particular state, that might, at a critical moment, seize it? I should have thought that this clause would have met with the most cordial approbation.
As the consent of the state in which it may be must be obtained, and as it may stipulate the terms of the grant, should they violate the particular stipulations it would be an usurpation; so that, >>>"if"<<< the members of Congress were to be guided by the "laws" of their country, none of those dangers could arise.
Mr. HENRY replied that, if Congress were vested with supreme power of legislation, paramount to the constitution and laws of the states, the dangers he had described might happen; for that Congress would not be confined to the "enumerated" powers.
This construction was warranted, in his opinion, by the addition of the word "department", at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of any department or officer of the government. (APP Note: A very Important Warning)
Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does >>>"not"<<< give Congress power to impede the operation of >>>any part<<< of the Constitution, or to make >>>any regulation<<< that may affect the interests of the citizens of the >>>Union at large.<<<
But it gives them power over the "local" "police" of the "place", so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the fair construction of the clause.
It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within that district. What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the >>> general powers of the federal legislature,<<< or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state "where it shall be". What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there,
in order to preserve {440} serve the police of the place and their own personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the fair construction. Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters. (APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)
...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, >>>I understand that clause as not going a single step beyond the delegated powers.<<<
What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the delegated powers, but can >>> by "no means" depart from them,<<< >>>>or arrogate "any new" powers;<<< for the plain language of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the ">>>"delegated"<<< powers".
------------
APP Note: The point being presented here, is that the original intent for use of police by the federal government outside of Washington DC was not "delegated" to the federal government and is not Constitutional, whether or not contracted;
That is, of course, outside the very limited "delegated" powers it would possess in national military actions after the United States legislature has "officially Declared War" and only as part of the armed forces.
Something that has yet to be done...
Even when it is for a good cause, when a ruler or legislature acts outside the laws, or procedures delegated to it, it sets a dangerous precedence that can be used by the following ruler or legislature for arbitrary purposes, a good section of John Locke to read regarding this is 162 to 166. A good lesson for those with good "intentions" in any country who allow any power a free "prerogative".
John Locke 166:
>>> "That the reigns of good princes have been always most dangerous to the liberties of their people."<<<
For when their successors, managing the government with different thoughts, would draw the actions of those good rulers into "precedent" and make them the standard of their "prerogative" -- as if what had been done only for the good of the people was a right in them to do for the >>>"harm" of the people,"<<<
A further point to present, is that though "peace" to some extent may be achieved; "liberating" a country's people out of a oppressive dictatorship or other, and into a total democracy where neither common law, nor inalienable rights, are recognized as supreme, can hardly be considered liberated long, but possibly only temporarily protected from immediate physical danger, while the people are being placed into the hands of yet another system of tyranny.
Here Patrick Henry says it quite well near the beginning of the same days debate which weighs being placed back into the same situation under a central national power as they had in England and had just fought themselves away from.
Mr. HENRY thought it necessary and proper that they should take a collective view of this whole section, and revert again to the first clause. He adverted to the clause which gives Congress the power of raising armies, and proceeded as follows: "To me this appears a very alarming power, when "unlimited". They are not only to raise, but to support, armies; and this support is to go to the utmost abilities of the United States. 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. 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."
"We shall be told that, in England, the king, lords, and commons, have this power; that armies can be raised by the prince alone, without the "consent" of the people. How does this apply here?
Is this government to place us in the situation of the English?" (APP Note: This illustrating a central national power they had just rid themselves of to become free and independent states)
"Should we suppose this government to resemble king, lords, and commons, we of this "state" {411} should be like an English county. An English county Cannot control the government. Virginia cannot control the government of Congress any more than the county of Kent can control that of England. 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 we may have troops in time of peace. They may be billeted in any manner to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us.
We are told, we are afraid to trust ourselves; that our own representatives Congress will not exercise their powers oppressively; that we shall not enslave ourselves; that the militia cannot enslave themselves,
Who has enslaved France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny? They have been "enslaved by the hands of their own people".
If it will be so in America, it will be only as it "has been" "every where else".
I am still persuaded that the power of calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, is dangerous. We requested the gentleman to show the cases where the militia would be wanting to execute the laws. Have we received a satisfactory answer?
When we consider this part, and compare it to other parts, which declare that Congress may declare war, and that the President shall command the regular troops, militia, and navy, we shall find great danger. Under the order of Congress, they shall suppress insurrections. Under the order of Congress, they shall be called to execute the "laws". It will result, of course, that this is to be a government of force. Look at the part which speaks of excises, and you will recollect that those who are to collect excises and duties are to be aided by military force. They have power to call them out, and to provide for arming, organizing, disciplining, them. Consequently, they are to make militia laws for this state.
The honorable gentleman said that the militia should be called forth to quell riots. Have we not seen this business go on very well to-day without military force? It is a long-established principle of the common law of England, that civil force is sufficient to quell riots. To what length may it not be carried? A law may be made that, if twelve men assemble, if they do not disperse, they may be fired upon. {412} I think it is so in England. Does not this part of the paper bear a strong aspect? The honorable gentleman, from his knowledge, was called upon to show the instances, and he told us the militia may be called out to quell riots. They may make the militia travel, and act under a colonel, or perhaps under a constable. Who are to determine whether it be a riot or not? Those who are to execute the laws of the Union?
If they have power to execute their laws in this manner, in what situation are we placed!
Your men who go to Congress are not restrained by a "bill of rights". They are not restrained from inflicting unusual and severe punishments, though the bill of rights of Virginia forbids it. What will be the consequence? They may inflict the most cruel and ignominious punishments on the militia, and they will tell you that it is necessary for their discipline.
Give me leave to ask another thing. Suppose an exciseman will demand leave to enter your cellar, or house, by virtue of his office; perhaps he may call on the militia to enable him to go. If Congress be informed of it, will they give you redress? They will tell you that he is executing the laws under the authority of the continent at large, which must be obeyed, for that the government cannot be carried on without exercising severity. It, without any reservation of rights or control, "you" are contented to give up "your" rights, "I am not".
There is no principle to guide the legislature to restrain them from inflicting the utmost severity of punishment. Will gentlemen voluntarily give up their liberty? With respect to calling the militia to enforce every execution indiscriminately, it is unprecedented. Have we ever seen it done in any free country? Was it ever so in the mother country? It never was so in any well-regulated country.
It is a government of force, and the genius of despotism expressly.
It is not proved that this power is necessary, and if it be unnecessary, shall we give it up?
----------
Here our own federal government has already "unbounded" the Constitution by simply ignoring it. Which you probably already are well aware of; Something the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had put a stop to, when the Adams administration did the same by acting outside their delegated powers.
The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions establish that it is the responsibility of the STATES to arrest the misuse of powers by the federal, and the STATES have full power to Void and Annul any undelegated and unauthorized practices of the federal government.
Having a national or international police force that obeys only "laws" without respect to either the limitations of the legislative, or the necessity common law, which is the basis of all just law; makes those laws obeyed or enforced null, void and without authority; Except an authority of force only, as established by John Locke and the founders.
Our political position is to place all policing powers, including the CIA of the federal government within limited delegated powers of the military and Constitution; and active federally only when war has been actually declared, where it can be monitored and actively limited by the legislature and the people through Constitution and military protocol; When it is not, the states and people should have full power and control independently, where they would be answerable directly to the state legislatures.
See also "John Locke 142": Fourthly: Legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, >>>or place it anywhere but where the people "have".<<<
The powers of the CIA are not presently authorized by the Constitution, nor is this "department" where the people of the state legislatures "have" a power to control when inside or outside a formal Declaration of War.
8.) On Futility of Training Foreign Police
and Military Without Freedom's Laws
This is not to say training of police in a foreign country is to be withheld in all cases;
But training the thoroughness of a police force (or military force) in a country for a government that does not respect common law, certain inalienable rights, or powerful independent state and local legislatures to insure proper representation of local grievances and controls over the national government; risks simply training men in the thoroughness of a maintaining a subjugated peace of arbitrary law made up of a ruling class and central national power;
A condition which is nothing more than a peaceful and quiet condition of slavery, ...and not liberation.
(See Locke 175, 176 - )
Locke 175: "...this consent is little taken notice of; and, therefore, many have mistaken the force of arms for the consent of the people, and reckon conquest as one of the "originals" of government.
But conquest is as "far" from setting up any government as demolishing a house is from building a new one in the place. Indeed, it often makes way for a new frame of a commonwealth by destroying the former; but, without the consent of the people, can "never" erect a new one.
Locke 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"..."
A condition we feel we should not leave behind, if already engaged, nor involve ourselves in supporting, if not.
Though democracy allows people voting powers, voting powers and rights easily become privileges instead of rights if the government is not limited in its power and placed in check by "multiple" "local representative legislatures" and "state constitutions" that establish those historically defined inalienable rights as their foundations.
This is the reason for establishing common law "republics" and independent state representative legislatures that each respects and protects individual rights; So to secure a free democracy, from the turmoil of an abusive or unstable total democracy or tyranny of a single central national government.
The above is in part, the foundations that establish our reasoning to endorse Ron Paul for president.
We suggest that you Google Ron Paul and listen first hand to his long established stands on defending our Constitution AS IT WAS INTENDED, on the many YouTube videos available.
For more historical intents of the founders, please review our Site Index from our American Patriot Party National Page.
We invite you to bookmark our web site http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc and visit us again for updated articles and events.
American Patriot Party.CC
Ron Paul Presidential Endorsement
|
