|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Patriots Civil Defense Force.
Welcome Patriots to the CDF Civil Defense Force US Central Command Center Echelons Website:
American Patriots, before going further, make sure to Read ``The Declaration of Independence";
Know why the US Constitution, which has been allowed to change, has become corrupted. Know what freedom means, know what Tyranny is.
Freedom
is defined in ``certain" inalienable rights presented in the Declaration
of Independence and established by the letters of the founding fathers that
describe their intents.
All men fighting for freedom in the Revolutionary War died for one document alone - The Declaration of Independence;
Know what your first right and duty is - Read the Declaration of Independence the words ``Right" and ``Duty" is mentioned together only once.
Civil
Defense begins with understanding what freedom is. Without this understanding,
we blind ourselves to the real core of our country's problems.
Educating a True Patriots Civil Defense is the US Patriot Civil Defense Force;
Dedicated
to teaching civilian, US, armed forces, usarpac, militia, military, cgsc,
pacific, Atlantic, federal, local government and defending, upholding and
enforcing the Rights as intended and set forth by our Founding Fathers;
Inspiration for true Freedom: See what the Real Definition of Patriotism is in this country.
See how the word ``Patriot" as in ``Patriot Act" is now being misused as a propaganda
tool to invade your privacy and reduce your ability to defend your self against
governments; Which is the reason for the 12th Grievance of the Declaration
of Independence and the 2nd amendment;
See ``Independence".
Know the Difference between Blind Nationalism (borders, symbols and such)
and True Patriotism (certain, inalienable, rights). The difference defines
freedom!
 Line of the Minute Men April 19, 1775
STAND YOUR GROUND DON'T FIRE UNLESS FIRED UPON BUT IF THEY MEAN TO HAVE WAR LET IT BEGIN HERE
By: Captain Parker an ``Embattled Farmer" at Lexington - Concord Bridge
We
welcome the U.S. Military who have visited our site to continue to do so.
Freedom was and will always be won by those who educate themselves in the
truth and refuse to accept foolish phrases such as ``Ours is not to reason
why...". All those who fought for freedom reasoned why and chose to fight
and die. None were drafted. Recognize freedom by knowing what it is. Read
the Declaration of Independence. If U.S. Bureaucracy continues to degrade
our rights, freedom itself may very well depend on you and your ability to
recognize who the enemy really is. Think about that. cdf
Throughout
its existence, the Continental Congress, in which each state had only one
vote, tended to be politically polarized: state-oriented "republicans," distrusting
central authority, usually represented the upper South and New England; and
nationally minded conservatives usually represented the Middle States and
South Carolina.
The first group dominated Congress from the spring
of 1776 until the end of 1780. It organized the Continental Army, negotiated
an alliance with France, and kept the army in the field by borrowing and
issuing unsecured paper money.
By December 1780, however, Congress was bankrupt and mutiny was threatening just as the war was coming to a climax.
The republicans, discredited, were supplanted by a nationalist majority, which dominated Congress until 1783.
The
nationalists established executive arms (departments of finance, war, and
foreign affairs, each headed by a superintendent) and kept the army well
enough equipped to win the decisive battle of Yorktown (October 1781).
When peace came in 1783, popular support for national measures ended, the army was disbanded, and locally minded politicians resumed control of Congress.
After
the war, Congress functioned with great difficulty. It did arrange for auditing
most of the war debts and for surveying and beginning the sale and governance
of the immense public domain of western lands; by the Northwest Ordinance
of 1787, it created the Northwest Territory.
Congress also maintained
diplomatic establishments in Paris and London. Although its ministers negotiated
treaties with several minor powers, they were wholly unsuccessful in settling
differences with France and Britain. At home, hamstrung by the Articles of
Confederation, Congress was equally impotent in paying its debts and coping
with commercial disruptions and armed revolts such as Shay's Rebellion in
Massachusetts.
The Continental Congress was finally displaced under the terms of the Constitution adopted in 1787.
Its final achievement was supervising the transfer of power to the new federal government in 1789.
It's ``small" administrative machinery was then taken over to form the core of President Washington's administration.
For Real Left and Real Right See ``LAW"
It is the size of the bureaucracy over the people that defines the Left, not the powers above it.
One
very large mistake made by many people, is that dictatorship is the product
of freedom (the right), when in fact it is actually the inevitability of
liberalism or ``Total Democracy" (the left).
This is because a dictator
can only come to power when the powers of the country are controllable. Powers
become controllable when they are not in the hands and equally dispersed
to each and every individual; but have been released by the people to a central power of a socialist or total democratic government.
Once this occurs, it opens the way for a single dictator to control;
and a Dictator controls through large bureaucracies.
A
dictator cannot obtain or maintain control over a populous that has equal
powers as a whole greater than that of the government that governs. See above
link for more facts on this.
RT.
Sons of Liberty
The
Sons of Liberty was a secret American inter colonial organization founded
in November 1765 to oppose, among ``other injustices", the Stamp Act.
Sons
of Liberty was a title traditionally used to designate those dedicated to
the defense of civil liberties, but it took on special meaning when a group
led by John Lamb and Isaac Sears formed the Sons of Liberty in New York City.
Chapters
soon appeared throughout the colonies, mainly in cities and larger towns.
Although representing a cross section of society, the Sons of Liberty were
made up mostly of tradesmen, laborers, and shopkeepers who passed intelligence
to other chapters and whose members resisted the British implementation of
the Stamp Act.
These ``early hearty Patriots" of Freedom informed and defended its citizens freedoms and opposed Britain's heavy hand upon them.
New York and Connecticut's liberty groups served as the first Minute Men although not yet named this.
Though the organization ``appeared"
to disband after repeal of the Stamp Act in March 1766, the Sons of Liberty
became the term applied to all patriotic persons or groups who supported
the Independence movement and later the same persons made up the first forces of the battles for independence; the Minute Men. cdf
There is a time when ``laws" are used as weapons far worse than physical armament.
``LAWS" were
Hitler's greatest weapons of a quiet war against the countries he invaded.
Instead of conquering a country head on with force, He used diplomacy to
number and keep track, first his own people, then of those he wished to conquer.
Laws disarmed the invaded populous with threats alone of imprisonment if
they did not comply with the laws. Laws made Jews loose property, to be gathered,
and finally to be butchered. All with a minimal of resistance, all under
the guise of the word ``LAW".
Here in America
the word ``LAW" is becoming more and more perverse. Our government is steadily
creating ``laws" to cover up our true laws that protect our freedoms. The
words `protect' and `prevent' are always close by to sell their invasive
laws that continually erode our certain, inalienable, rights.
We have the freedom
of speech but there are ``laws" that keep us from using radio transmissions
any time we wish. ``Laws" present many reasons for this, from too few channels;
but while controlling the number of stations, they do not control how many
any one person or corporation can possess which leaves radio transmitting
to only those wealthy enough to purchase existing stations.
The lengthy licensing procedure that is invasive, even asking for income tax papers
creates unconstitutional fear in many generally good citizens. The cost of
$4000.oo or more for a application that cannot guarantee the application
will result in a license. If you do transmit, you are threatened with imprisonment
and excessive fines. If you must control because of practicality, then the
only free way to allow for anyone to have a chance for all the channels
available, not because of money, but by yearly lottery which has no license
requirements except that they are a American citizen, no other. Though the
arise of the Internet is negating this problem, already there are attempts
being made to control, eves drop or keep track of people using this form
of communication. People doing this are not Americans, they are socialists,
regardless of their reasons. No exceptions. You are for freedom or against
it.
Governments always stress they do what they do to protect the people, but rarely try to allow - or to present real
ways for the people to protect themselves. This was really apparent in the
latest terrorism crisis. President Bush danced all around telling people
how to really protect themselves except telling them to be watchful and aware.
Neither which would protect them from bodily harm in a gas attack or other
physical attack, his statement is the same useless reasoning as the 1950's
``Duck and Cover" nuclear civil defense drills. Yet a gas mask was very close
to his hands. Guns and guards at his ready. Go about your day as normal is his motto, while he doubled his
security, what a fool. I voted for him as the better of the two hands down,
but this stand makes me believe he would risk the publics life in its entirety
for a bureaucrat. The president is the most disposable person in a free country,
it is the populous of the general citizenry that is indisposable. Anyone
can do the job as president equally as well (it is almost impossible find
a worse president than our last one), there are numerous safeguards to replace
him if he dies. The general population which is the true strength however
cannot be easily replaced.
Here, instead
of empowering the general populous at large, he creates more ``LAWS" on the
people to ``PROTECT" them. Again, what a fool. The only way you protect a
free people is to allow them to protect themselves unconditionally. If everyone
was armed on the airliners that hit the World Trade Center, we wouldn't even
be having this conversation. At most a isolated plane crash; at best some
very dead criminals with business as usual at the twin towers.
A person does
not take a canteen into a desert because he is paranoid, he does so to be
prepared. When Israel was threatened, that government passed out gas masks
to be prepared. What a simple thing to do for people in general, the military
has plenty and the taxpayers will have paid for them anyway. Why not arm
or allow the general populous to arm themselves equally in defense and arms
to the military as presented in the 12th grievance of the Declaration of Independence?
Is it because the government fears its own people to be equally capable?
When a government begins to fear its own peoples freedoms to an extent that
they arm themselves against them through invasive laws, it is obvious something
is seriously wrong; and the wrong is not in the people, but in the government.
It most directly aims at federal, state and local governments and judges
who refuse to uphold the Bill of Rights, which are supreme laws, as
they were written. How can anyone respect laws that in themselves break our
most valuable and cherished laws?
The right of ``the people" (as in .."we THE PEOPLE" to form a better government) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
is a supreme law and a certain inalienable right for which the Constitution
would have never been ratified. The 12th grievance of the Declaration of
Independence defines the reason for this RIGHT. Yet our government continues
to stack LAW after LAW on top of this Supreme law to bury it. See 12th Grievance in the Declaration of Independence page. How can we respect our courts and judges who do not themselves respect and uphold the supreme law of the land?
Our government
distances itself from dealing with these infringements by allowing local
governments to rule on and infringe on rights who do all but ignore them;
and continually infringe upon them. This forces the individual to go through
an endless chain of legal hurdles through court after court simply because
the lower courts do not recognize the supreme law as law. Then federal courts
fight the ``Right" as it approaches the Supreme Court who then ``chooses"
whether or not it will hear it. The 4th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence
addresses this as the government bureaucracies at that time tried to make
the courts and laws far removed from correction by ordinary people. This is a formal warning.
All Courts and
Judges in this country must recognize the Bill of Rights as Supreme and absolute,
save nothing; or else we have become the enemy we fear. The Intents of these
rights established through the Grievances of the Declaration of Independence
and defined by the Originating Founding Fathers that signed that document
and led the fight in defining what freedom is. The crime and not the method
of how it was achieved should be the point of any matter, and practicing
Rights should never be tried as a crime.
And a question looms in the present ``War on Terrorism". Tell me Mr. President, how does a person do his First Right and Duty as defined in the Declaration of Independence
without being labeled and tried as a Terrorist, Criminal, Traitor or Murderer?
Maybe you should write it down so I can list it here.
I want to have faith in my president and government, but so long as our presidents and this government continue to enact invasive laws;
to number and to keep track of its citizens; to tax us against the guidelines
of the Declaration of Independence; expand and empower invasive bureaucracies;
invade our privacy; pass laws that bury our Certain, Inalienable, Rights;
continue to teach our military to ``not to reason why"... when no patriot
ever fought without choice and reason, which is what separates an American
and a defender of freedom from the mindless soldiers of our enemies who will
turn on their people on an order; continue not to read the Declaration of
Independence and Bill of Rights, that never change, to the military as being
what they are defending; continue making crimes against the federal government
a greater crime than if a general crime, as if the federal government was
some greater entity; continue condemning private property for causes not
related to war needs which is the only reason granted in the Declaration
of Independence for any condemnation of private property; refuse to uphold
and defend our Certain, Inalienable, Rights in courts and through judges
as is their duty and job; continue to sell our country out to a world banking
community with no allegiance to our freedoms or independence; create
laws upon and take away rights from free citizens based on the actions of
criminals or terrorists or other useless reasons; fail to put a freeze on
federal hiring and really reduce the burden of government; fail to take away
zoning and property tax laws that are rampid in this country and are completely
unconstitutional as we do not rent from this government, we own absolutely;
fail to take away laws and regulations petitioned by corporations, special
interests and unions that protect them from competition of individuals; we
cannot afford to tolerate a steady chain of invasive laws. Such are but a
few of the continued trespasses against the free people of this country.
You are warned.
See: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government (This includes ours) and to provide new guards for their future security.
To present just
a few changes necessary for true freedom, set your mind on these: No names
and No numbers, No Property tax, No Income tax, No Sales tax, No tax that
connects the tax to any person, entity, or product. Instead, a toll tax (see Patriot tax)
paid and collected equally in small amounts by each individual on the road
as they pass, a government that knows not who pays the tax and a tax that
is subject to a general vote of the people for state, county and city taxes
and is picked up by the postal service; import taxes that pay for federal
expenses only, including military and at amounts voted on by the general
public, no other federal tax collected but for this; No more collecting of
federal taxes from individuals; dissolve the IRS; dissolve the BLM returning
all federal lands within the states to the states without terms; put blinders
on the US military to look outside our borders only, to protect the citizens
from outside enemies only; local law enforcement for enforcement of local
laws.
Our civilians
in this country are ill prepared for defense should our military be over
ran by biological or chemical warfare and we are faced with fighting against
a world where automatic arms are available to all but the foolish who either
have governments who withhold them from their people or are unwilling to
fight for freedom. The 12th Grievance guarantees the civilian powers to be equal to or greater than the standing army for defense of freedom. Turn your socialist laws away from the free civilians and allow them to defend themselves. You are warned.
If this is too
hard for you to do, step from your office and let someone step in your place
that can. Socialism is so thick in this country it is impossible to ignore. Do your duty at every level of government and citizenry and throw it out. Your first right and duty is your personal duty, not a collective one of the general population.
Richard Taylor cdf
The Poem that stirred the colonists as they prepared themselves for armed resistance:
``Is Life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
Patrick Henry
These
words indicate it is not about life, it is not about peace; It is about freedom.
Not just complete freedom with disregard, but a freedom that is defined by
the Declaration of Independence and the founders letters.
Ever wonder what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence? Click on ``Founders" to find out what being a true Patriot and ``American" is. It is more than just living in a geological area
What defines Totalitarianism or despotism?
The grievances presented in the Declaration of Independence outline and define what this word means exactly.
It is these grievances that all men in the revolutionary war fought and died against.
The opposite of these grievances defines Freedom
--------
We are first and foremost a ``Individual Rights Respective" people and government.
We
are then secondly, and only after our rights are satisfied and obeyed, then,
and only then, do we allow a representative based government.
Remember, Hitler was voted in. Total democracy is total socialism.
Certain Inalienable
Rights however can not be voted out. We are a ``Individual" `Rights based'
country that insures a single individuals rights. Not a country that gives
up a individuals right for the good of the country as a whole.
If we were to
look toward self sacrifice for the general good, we have become what our
enemies are. All socialism's, communism's and other failed forms of governments
sell their people the same propaganda ideal. Once they have total power,
they use this idealism to control the masses.
By insuring each individual certain inalienable rights, no government can control the people.
Think before
you vote. Read the Declaration of Independence. Know what freedom is. Being
an American and patriot is more than simply occupying a geological location.
``Freedom" and true American patriotism is a belief in ``Certain" ``Inalienable" ``Rights" and the willingness to do your first right and duty.
RT.
George Washington read the Declaration of Independence to his troops. This is what freedom was fought for. Have you read it?
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with "certain" "inalienable" "rights"; that "among" these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No respect should be given to those who create laws that change, alter or place laws atop these ``Rights" which are the Supreme Laws of our country that all other laws must be subject to and in line with; or not be respected or upheld as a ``law".
Many U.S. judges and law officials today will declare you must obey laws which have nothing to do with freedom. cdf
The Continental Congress,
made up of delegates from the 13 original American states (initially colonies),
was the government of the United States in one form or another for 15 years
(1774-89).
The First Continental Congress (September-October 1774) was an extralegal body called to protest certain measures of the British Parliament, especially the Intolerable Acts and the Quebec Act. This congress, however, also urged the colonies to arm themselves for defense of their rights.
By the time the Second Congress convened (May 1775), the battles of Lexington
and Concord had taken place and the American Revolution had begun. The Second
Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence in July 1776 and drafted
the Articles of Confederation (completed in November 1777), giving itself a constitutional basis.
The Articles, however, were not finally ratified until March 1, 1781; thus
Congress carried on the direction of the Revolutionary War on a makeshift,
ad hoc basis.
ad hoc: 1. For the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other.
—ad hoc adj. 1. Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose. 2. Improvised and often impromptu.
Here are just a few reasons we fought for freedom. For more, go here and read the other reasons and grievences.... KNOW what freedom means.
4.) He (the king)
has called together legislative bodies, at places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the repository of their public records, for the sole purpose
of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
7.) He has endeavored
to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the
laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage
their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations
of lands.
12.) He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.
``National identification" is a criminal offense against a free people and an act of treason directed at each citizen of this free country.
Laws created
to regulate or keep track of law abiding citizens in response to criminal
actions or possible criminal actions, is a socialist propaganda tool directed
at undermining freedom.
``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The 4th Amendment, just one of your certain, inalienable, Rights;
i.e. Among these. These for which the Constitution would never have been
ratified without. This means, for those who can't grasp the weight of this,
that the Constitution means nothing, absolutely nothing, without these certain, inalienable rights. Nothing.
How can people
be Secure in their own persons, houses, papers and effects if each is numbered
to be kept track of; Secure in their houses when they can be taxed out of
them; Secure in their papers if the government has the right to know all
your business; Property if they can regulate where you can live, and what
you can and can't do with it. Are the federal, state, county and city employees
and representatives so blinded by the fear they will loose their jobs, or
so cowardly or so bent on socialism they cannot see the foolish danger they
are placing this country, our people and their freedoms in? Do your first
right and duty and start throwing these things out and reduce the burden
on the people, least this country fall in one day from turmoil within. You are Warned.
These warnings
are not from actions of any one man, but from the history tried inevitability
of what happens to governments and countries who continue to over tax, over
regulate and invade every corner of their citizenry's privacy.
Richard Taylor cdf
Property taxes
keep the poor from bettering themselves through home improvement for fear
of taxing themselves out of their home and keep the average home owner from
actually owning their home.... only renting it from the government.
Zoning keeps
families from pooling their resources, starting or expanding a local business
or profiting from their work or investment.
Instead this goes to the contractor who has the money to jump through the hoops.
The zoning usually changes but only to those that need it the least.
Both are unconstitutional and solidly against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. See True Patriot Tax
Veteran's Day:
(Excerpt
From the NCS Board thread: My response to a statement made about the
Declaration of Independence being ``outdated laws created by slave owners")
``...
What they lost their lives for, is greater than the life. We owe them the
honor of not loosing the reason and purpose they died for.
I disagree
with the point of any of the Declaration of Independence being outdated.
"the phrase "all men are created equal" was there even though it was not
completely implemented; and not all the fore fathers or patriots were slave
owners, actually very few, most were poor farmers and tradesmen in the colonies.
Slavery
was not the issue at the time, and is an entirely different subject; Even
much later, in the civil war, the main reason for the conflict was not slavery,
but competition between Northern and Southern industry who financed the war,
Although in part by slavery because the North could not compete with the
South's cheap labor, it was money and the fact that the South was attempting
to break away and have the ability to be an independent power, which is actually guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.
Untold
in your history books is that the Southern army a third the size of the North
was winning because they believed in the freedom independent states rule,
another item guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence: "free and independent states".
Abraham
Lincoln then created the first federal draft, for which many people, whites
and blacks were drug out and hung in New York to protest the draft; and some
Northern slave owners sent poor farmers and slaves out to fight in their
place; as did politicians etc.
The South lost fighting against a forced inscription, something the Declaration of Independence was fought to keep out, as England had done it to "the people" for years.
They understood that a just war would have many volunteers and a draft would be unnecessary.
The
12th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence was to insure the civil
powers - you and me - were at all times equal or greater than the military
powers. Something that is way out of proportion today.
Educating people
as to what others died for, is I believe paramount as this is what the living
are thankful for. Freedom is defined and was defined over 200 years ago and
does not change.
George Washington educated his troops by reading
the Declaration of Independence before going into battle. So there was no
question as to what they were sacrificing for."
(Most of our military
now, do not know their first right and duty as outlined in the Declaration
of Independence and have no idea what the grievances are which still have
major relevance today).
``Socialism and (other "isms") are progressive, that means man tends to lean toward that and away from freedom.
I
honor those on veterans day that have died for freedom, not socialism; and
that includes the first patriots, for earthly reasons. God with sort through
both later. Again another subject.
By the way, nice toon Stacy, and Thank you Kelly and Joe for your service in protecting these freedoms we have."
RT. cdf
If the U.S. would hold its hand or fall, what little freedom in the worlds ``Total" democracies will fall like dominoes.
Why?
Freedoms within ``Total" democracies never last or work on their own as there
is no difference between a Total democracy and socialism, none.
Freedoms in a total democracy or ``mob rule" are soon deamed unecessary to a central governments goals.
The worlds peace relies on our single republic that respects a individuals single right over the general populous.
Without a set
of inalienable rights for individuals, any government either in actual change,
or gradual change of thinking, could simply disregard them as unnecessary
or simply say the rights are no longer the will of the people by voting them
out.
The United States Federal Government is now teetering dangerously on some of this same kind of foolish thinking.
This is a clear warning. RT.
Beware of propaganda words such as ``"Terrorism".
All war terrorizes the enemy of either side. Call the act of war an act of war and an enemy an enemy.
Why create words
simply to gain public support, maneuver around our laws of war and undermine
our own rights and laws of freedom.
Another description
is ``Cowardly Act". This is another stupid propaganda ploy. Any one knows
that any individual will be a coward half the time in any situation and brave
the other half depending on how he feels that day, what he does or doesn't
have to loose, or how long he has been carpet bombed or tortured.
People who die
or kill themselves or pit themselves against a far superior opponent knowing
they risk retaliation or annihilation for what they believe in are not cowards;
Sorry, you may hate their guts and wish to destroy them but don't call them cowards. Use the word enemy and leave it at that;
During the Revolutionary
war the British sent Indians and foreign mercenaries to scalp us, burn our
houses and kill women and children. Did we scream ``terrorist" or coward?
No;
We did the proper thing, we declared war; we called them enemies and left it at that.
The definition of an enemy is not exclusive to be between countries who only ``recognize" themselves.
If this was so, our country was founded on terrorists shooting our own standing armies from behind the protection of barriers.
Wars
are not fair. They are fought to stop the other side from doing something
they do not like or subdue it for one reason or another.
This is the
reason for the inalienable right to separate from any government as defined
and the purpose of the Declaration of Independence.
On a percentage basis we risked far more in the revolution than we do now;
In war we ourselves
have long since abandoned chivalry in exchange for an easy win or what is
financially feasible, so don't use that as an excuse to use the words coward;
If bravery had
anything to do with war now, we would arm our military with like weapons
of the enemy and meet them on the field in equal numbers;
Of course this would be stupidity because the object of war has always been to win. Not to show how brave we are;
Governments only use that word to get the foolish and young to believe they are invincible until they get to battle.
A brave act would
be to attack China, Mexico, Columbia and a number of other countries who
misuse their people to free them and place the Bill of Rights as a condition
of their surrender;
... but that would mean standing up for
what we believe in and gee, with China, probable mutual destruction; we would
rather let them suffer a few hundred generations under favored nation status.
So please, nix
the propaganda words least they be used factually on a people who shake at
the mention of IRS, financial insecurity or standing up for their certain
inalienable rights. cdf
RT.
``War on Terrorism".
Here is scary set of words and all Americans should wake up and beware their use.
It is impossible to declare a war on an undetermined criminal act or acts not yet committed.
It is also impossible to win a war on `not yet' enemies.
The only thing
that this statement presents, is that the government has become paranoid
and is reacting on fear to a point that it is planning to keep track of every
citizen both of its own citizenry as well as the entire populous of the world.
A act that Hitler did by mapping every home on every plock down to the smallest room and closet.
If it were to
be simply being prepared, the US government would, along with preparing itself,
prepare its people and more importantly not restrict people from protecting
themselves with whatever means of self protection they can. But this is not
the case. Instead, the federal government has shown they are unwilling to
do their duty and throw out unconstitutional regulations which would allow
individuals greater freedoms to protect themselves. Limiting the kind and
types of arms and regulating sales and free transportation of arms.
This shows that
not only do they fear their own people, which is right and good; but they
have taken further steps to create more regulations to control not themselves,
but their own citizens in an attempt to protect only themselves.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776:
"Fear
is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion,
and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable,
that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution
which is founded on it.".
These acts are only widening the gap between government and its citizens.
Our cities have
no shelters, our people are not trusted with the right to keep and bear arms
equal to the standing army as is our right (see 12th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence)
to protect ourselves and defend our country. Tax dollars paid by citizens
are spent to give gas masks, arms and clothing to the military, but not the
citizenry at large, a simple act that would allow them to simply be prepared.
Fire departments
in the LA area know that the people there are defenseless. This is not aiding
information to the enemy, its waking you up to reality so you can take action;
and allow the citizenry themselves to realize this fact and take action.
A more recent
danger is the giving of a single person in charge of this ``Home Security"
fallacy. First, the federal military should not be involved in security within
any independent state, this is a state issue. Secondly, by putting a single
person within the military in charge of this, instead of state powers, is
a grave mistake. Placing a federal power that is subject to international
agreements, laws and guidelines is a sure way to play our country into the
hands of a world control.
Stop playing with our rights and Do your First Right and Duty!
Freedom works. Let it work.
Least the citizens of this country become sheep to the butcher from socialist powers externally or internally.
Richard Taylor cdf
Know the difference between True Patriotism and that of the false patriotism of Nationalism. cdf
A
sound economy and the laws that support it can devour freedom as much as
any submission to socialism. Beware of the line that divides ``financial
security" and ``freedom". cdf
``If
ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.
Crouch
down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams American Patriot & Politician 1722 - 1803
Freedom
was and is born of desperation, and necessity, not pride. Beware of False
National Pride brought about by Nationalistic goals.
Wiegh the Certain inalienable rights that is and is of freedom.
The Minute Man, Minute Men and Civil Defense.
Understanding
the border issues by understanding certain inalienable rights and the intents
of the originating founding fathers.
The border problems do not solve
the over regulation of business through business and zoning laws within our
country, nor will it solve the unjust social tax and bureaucratic burdens
that are the main reasons for unemployment and heavy tax burdens. Don't look
for scapegoats to our own internal social failings.
Change the laws
to allow freedom to work. People seem willing to spend days and hours patrolling
a border but shrink back from simply setting down at a desk and writing the
bills that will change the laws in this country, or run for offices that
weld the power to change the laws at higher levels of government, that will
solve the problems.
If Mexico will not straighten up there act, it
may be time for a 51st free and independent state to free its people from
their oppressors with certain inalienable rights.
Stop arresting the poor peasants and start arresting the cause of their plight.
Stop trying to pacify the Mexican pride of their elite leaders and start freeing their subjects whom they trod upon for profits
Bring
the peso up to the dollar. Convince their governments to give their people
certain inalienable rights and watch the people want to stay in their own
newly created free and independent Country.
Or if their socialist governments continue to be corrupt, Create free and Independent
states of Mexico, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua
and Panama by invitation to their masses, not their socialist government
elitists.
Want to stop drug trafficking?
Narrow the border of all free and INDEPENDENT states of North America at the Panama canal.
American:
Many wave the flag and shout I am an American, and say they are for freedom.
But when asked to present just one of the Grievances of the Declaration of
Independence they get a blank look upon their faces; They have never read
the document and have never really been taught what freedom is and what freedom
is not, They have never been taught the dangers of the propaganda of
Nationalism. Learn what it is. Learn what freedom really is - it is clearly
defined in the Declaration of Independence

Did you know many of these men seen here died from torture and hanging and described as traitors by their own government?
They
were at peace, all they had to do to maintain ``peace" was to continue to
be taxed, and be good ``law abiding" ``citizens".
Sound familiar?
What was it that made a small group of farmers stand to face the largest military in the world and say no more?
Patrick Henry's Poem presents Life and Peace are not to be purchased at the hands of slavery and slavery comes in many forms.
It was not the flag, they had none; Not a border, as they were proclaimed independent states each in their own.
It was Freedom from imposing governments and taxation and control over every aspect of their lives; how soon have we forgotten!
To many of those
patriots then at that time Federalism, the Federalist papers, and its affects
to the Constitution were criminal; and still are.
When will you say no more.
What will you risk for freedom, True Freedom?
Patriot CDF
CDF
America's First Center for Freedom and Civil Defense, Defending and Securing
the True Definition of Inalienable Rights through Education of the Laws of
the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.
Freedom is defined in the Declaration of Independence.
The Bill of Rights was established to restrict the federal government from touching those rights.
This
presents a bill which forces our government to submit to and obey these
and other rights guaranteed absolute inalienable God given birth rights whithin
the Declaration of Independence;
But the defense of inalienable
rights are further defined in the Declaration of Independence. ``These" Rights
for which all the workings of the Constitution must obey as defined in it's
own ammendments regarding former engagements and agreements..
Declaration of Independence: "And
for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection
of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor."
Constitution: Article VI: All Debts contracted
"and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths and Declarations), before the adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United Sates under this
Constitution as under the "Confederation". This Constitution, and the Laws
of the United States which shall be pursuance thereof; and all Treaties (Oaths
and Declarations) "made", or which shall be made, under the Authority of
the United States, shall be supreme Law of the Land ...."
The Constitution
is in fact a document built on, and subject to, the foundations of the Declaration
of Independence which is the sole document and foundation of true Freedom
that defines Certain Inalienable Rights;
The True Basis of Freedom.
The American Revolution was fought of citizen militia, for all were considered traitors to their own government;
Minute Men Sons of Liberty The 12th Grievance
of the Founding Fathers that secures the right of the individual to keep
and bear arms; and further, to hammer the true definition of the 2nd Amendment.
Don't let politics of any party cloud your mind.
Don't let any criminal act be used as an excuse to take freedoms or rights away from citizens
The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights and a Constitution that respects the fact that these Rights never change...
...Or
a Constitution that ignores absolute God Given Birth Rights and is subject
to the changes and advancement of socialism agenda in a free country.
The line is drawn. Choose. Then do your DUTY.
If you don't know what your first Right and Duty is, Read the Declaration of Independence.
If you do not know what freedom really stands for, Read the GRIEVANCES for which the revolutionary war- which defined freedom- was fought.
If you don't know what freedom really stands for, how can you call yourself an American?
Being an American is far more than simply occupying a geographical area on the earth.
READ THE SIMPLE 1 PAGE DOCUMENT! The ``Constitution" does not define what freedom stands for; the Declaration of Independence does!
Thousands died for the words in the Declaration of Independence. No one died to ratify the Constitution. Know what your patriotism is and where your patriotism stands. cdf
Pacific West Coast Directory: Home of Army Major Pacific Military and Naval Command Centers. Army Major Command Centers Directory:
Abbreviation to US Bases and Command Centers:
AMC
U.S. Army Military and Naval Material Pacific Major Central Command
Center located in Fort Belvior, VA. The official website is www.amc.army.mil
AMC is the Army's premier provider of materiel readiness to the total force
across the spectrum of joint military operations. If a soldier shoots
it, drives it, flies it, wears it or eats it, AMC provides it.
MTMC
U.S. Army Military and Naval Traffic Management Pacific Major Central
Command Center located on Alexandria, VA. The official website is www.mtmc.army.mil
MTMC is the Department of Defense's heavy-equipment mover for contingency,
training and humanitarian operations.
MEDCOM U.S. Army Military
Medical Pacific West Major Central Command Center located at Fort Sam Houston,
Texas. The official website is www.armymedicine.army.mil
MEDCOM projects and sustains a healthy and medically protected force; trains,
equips, and deploys the medical force; and manages and promotes the health
of soldiers and military families.
USARPAC U.S. Army Military
and Naval Pacific Major Central Command Center located at Fort Shafter, Hawaii.
The official website is www.usarpac.army.mil USARPAC provides trained
and ready forces in support of military and peacetime operations in the Asia-Pacific
area in order to contribute to regional stability, crisis response and decisive
victory.
FORSCOM U.S. Army Military Forces Pacific Major Central
Command Center located at Fort McPherson, Georgia. The official website
is www.forscom.army.mil The Army Command Center component of U.S. Joint
Forces Pacific Command, FORSCOM trains, mobilizes, deploys and sustains active
and reserve component forces capable of operating in joint and combined environments
to meet worldwide operational commitments.
USASOC U.S. Army
Special Operations Major Central Central Pacific / Atlantic Command Center
is located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The official website is www.soc.mil
USASOC Special Operations Command Center organizes, trains, educates, mans,
equips, funds, administers, mobilizes, deploys and sustains Army special
operations forces to successfully conduct worldwide special operations across
the range of military operations, in support of regional combatant commanders,
American ambassadors and other agencies, as directed.
USARSO
U.S. Army Military and Naval Major Pacific Western Central Command Center,
South located is at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico. The official website
is www.usarso.army.mil USARSO commands and controls Army forces
in the U.S. Southern Major Central Command area of responsibility and provides
theater support for Army forces and headquarters as directed by the USSSOUTHCOM
Commander in Chief. USARSO will become a major subordinate command
of FORSCOM and move to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, during fiscal year 2003.
TRADOC
U.S. Army Military Training and Doctrine Major Central Pacific Command
Center is located at Fort Monroe, Virginia. The official website is
www.tradoc.army.mil TRADOC shapes the 21st-century Army by training
and educating its soldiers and leaders while sustaining the shared vision
of how the Army operates as a member of joint service, combined arms and
multinational teams.
CID U.S. Army - Military and Naval Criminal
Investigation Major Central Command Center Pacific is located at Fort Belvoir,
Virginia. The official website is www.cid.army.mil CID is the
Army's criminal investigative organization and conducts investigations in
which the Army is or may be a party of interest. CID provides senior
leader protective-services and forensic laboratory support to investigations;
maintains the Army's criminal records; provides logistical security from
factory to foxhole; conducts computer network intrusion investigations; and
develops countermeasures to criminal and subversive activity.
INSCOM
U.S. Army Military Intelligence and Security Major Pacific Central
Command Center is located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The official website
is www.inscom.army.mil INSCOM conducts dominant intelligence, security
and information operations for commanders and national decision-makers, and
provides warfighters with the seamless intelligence needed to understand
and dominate the battlefield.
SMDC U.S. Space and Missile Defense
Military and Naval Major Pacific Central Command Center is located in Arlington,
Virginia. The official website is www.smdc.army.mil SDMC develops
and provides space and missile-defense capabilities for the Army and the
nation.
EUSA Eight U.S. Army Military and Naval Major Pacific
Western Central Command Center located in Yongsan, Korea. The official
website is http://8tharmy.korea.army.mil EUSA supports deterrence of
North Korean aggression against the Republic of Korea and, should deterrence
fail, supports noncombatant-evacuation operations and transitions to hostilities
as it generates combat power to support the United Nations Command and Combined
Forces Command response.
USAREUR U.S. Army Military and Naval,
Europe located at Heidelberg, Germany. The official website is www.hqusareur.army.mil
As America's Army in Europe, USAREUR is structured and trained as a versatile
and agile power-projection force, ready for joint and multinational operations,
and committed to providing for the readiness and well being of its soldiers,
civilians and families.
USASCE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Army and Navy located in Washington, D.C. The official website is www.usace.army.mil
USACE provides quality, responsive engineering services to the Army, Department
of Defense and the nation.
MDW U.S. Army Military and Naval
District of Washington located at Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. The
official website is www.mdw.army.mil MDW responds to crisis, disaster
or security requirements in the National Capital Region; provides base operations
support for defense organizations throughout the NCR, including operation
of Arlington National Cemetery; and conducts official ceremonies on behalf
of the nation's civilian and military leaders.
AMC, MTMC, MEDCOM, USARPAC, FORSCOM, USASOC, USARSO, TRADOC, CID, INSCOM, SMDC, EUSA, USAREUR, USASCE, MDW information page
Pacific Command (PACOM) Current Order
Pacific Major Military and Naval Central Command Centers - U.S. Army Pacific 8th U.S. Army - 25th Infantry Division (Light) - 6th Cavalry Brigade - U.S. Army Japan - 17th Aviation Brigade - U.S. Army Alaska - 164th ATS Group - 18th Medical Command - 19th Theater Support Command - 2nd Infantry Division (Light)
Unit Type Base Barracks Pacific Military and Naval Command - Major Pacific West Central Command Center (PACOM) HQ Honolulu, HI Camp Smith U.S. Army Pacific - Major Pacific West Central Command Center (USARPAC) Military and Naval HQ Bat Honolulu, HI Fort Shafter 45.SuppGr Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Schofield Bks 68.MedCo (AA)/524.SB UH-60A Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF B.Co/214.Av(M)/524.SB CH-47D Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF
25th Infantry Division (Light) "Tropic Lightning" Major Military and Naval Pacific West Central Command Center HQ Co Wahiawa/Oahu, HI Schofield Bks DivSuppCom Wahiawa/Oahu, HI Schofield Bks C.Co/25.Av (AVIM) no helicopter assigned Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF AvBrig Wahiawa/Oahu, HI Schofield Bks 1.Bat/25.Av (ATK) OH-58D(R) Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF 2.Bat/25.Av (AHB) Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF 2.Bat/25.Av/A.Co (AHC) UH-60L Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF 2.Bat/25.Av/B.Co (AHC) UH-60L Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF 2.Bat/25.Av/C.Co (CMD) UH-60A, EH-60C, OH -58D Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF 2.Bat/25.Av/D.Co (AVUM) Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF 3.Sq/4.Cav OH-58D(R) Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Schofield Bks G.Co/58.Av (ATS) Wahiawa / Oahu, HI Wheeler AAF
U.S. Army Japan (USARJ) Major Military and Naval Pacific Western Central Command Center HQ Co Sagamihara, Japan Camp Zama 9.TSC Sagamihara, Japan Camp Zama 78.AvBat (CMD) Sagamihara, Japan Camp Zama / Kastner AAF 78.AvBat/A.Co C-12F, UH-60A Sagamihara, Japan Camp Zama / Kastner AAF 78.AvBat/D.Co Sagamihara, Japan Camp Zama / Kastner AAF
U.S. Army Alaska (USARAK) - Major Military and Naval Central Pacific Command Center HQ Anchorage, AK Fort Richardson ArcticSuppBrig Anchorage, AK Fort Richardson 4.Bat/123.Av (TA) Fairbanks, AK Fort Wainwright / Ladd AAF 4.Bat/123.Av/B.Co (MHC) CH-47D Fairbanks, AK Fort Wainwright / Ladd AAF 4.Bat/123.Av/D.Co (AHC) UH-60A Fairbanks, AK Fort Wainwright / Ladd AAF C.Co/123.Av (AVIM) UH-60A, CH-47D Fairbanks, AK Fort Wainwright / Ladd AAF 68.MedDet (AA) UH-60A Fairbanks, AK Fort Wainwright/Ladd AAF 129.MedDet (AA) UH-1V Anchorage, AK Fort Richardson/Bryant AAF USAG Fort Greely/AvDet UH-1H Delta Junction, AK Fort Greely/Allen AAF 8th U.S. Army (EUSA) - Major Military and Naval Central Pacific Command Center HQ Yongsan, RoK Yongsan Main Post 1 6.CavBrig (Air) Pyongtaek, RoK Camp Humphreys/Desiderio AAF 1.Sq/6.Cav (ATK) AH-64A Hoengsong, RoK Camp Eagle 3.Sq/6.Cav (ATK) AH-64D Pyongtaek, RoK Camp Humphreys / Desiderio AAF 17.AvBrig (TA) Yongsan, RoK Yongsan Main Post 1 - Major Military and Naval Pacific Central Command Center 1.Bat/52.Av (CMD) Songnam,RoK Seoul AB 1.Bat/52.Av/A.Co (CS) UH-60A Songnam, RoK Seoul AB 1.Bat/52.Av/B.Co (CS) UH-60A Songnam, RoK Seoul AB 1.Bat/52.Av/C.Co (CS) UH-60A Songnam, RoK Seoul AB 1.Bat/52.Av/D.Co (AVUM) Songnam, RoK Seoul AB 2.Bat/52.Av (MHB) Pyongtaek, RoK Camp Humphreys / Desiderio AAF 2.Bat/52.Av/A.Co (M) CH-47D Pyongtaek, RoK Camp Humphreys / Desiderio AAF 2.Bat/52.Av/B.Co (M) CH-47D Pyongtaek, RoK Camp Humphreys / Desiderio AAF 6.Bat/52.Av/A.Co (TA) C-12F Songnam, RoK Seoul AB 164.ATSGr (ATS) Yongsan, RoK Yongsan Main Post 2 - Major Military and Naval Central Pacific Command Center B.Co/58.Av (ATS) Uijongbu, RoK Camp Red Cloud B.Co/58.Av/1.Pl (ATS) Chunchon, RoK Camp Page B.Co/58.Av/Tower (ATS) Pyongtaek, RoK Camp Humphreys / Desiderio AAF B.Co/58.Av/Tower (ATS) Taegu,RoK Camp Walker B.Co/58.Av/Radar (ATS) Suwon,RoK Madison RadioSite D.Co/58.Av (ATS) Yongsan,RoK Yongsan Main Post 2 D.Co/58.Av/2.Pl (ATS) Pyongtaek, RoK Camp Humphreys / Desiderio AAF D.Co/58.Av/Tower (ATS) Uijongbu, RoK Camp Stanley / Cochran AAF D.Co/58.Av/Tower (ATS) Tongduchon-Ni, RoK Camp Casey D.Co/58.Av/Tower (ATS) Uijongbu, RoK Camp LaGuardia 18.MedCom Yongsan,RoK Yongsan South Post 1 52.MedBat (Evac) Yongsan, RoK Yongsan South Post 1 377.MedCo (AA) UH-60A Pyongtaek, RoK Camp Humphreys / Desiderio AAF 377.MedCo/Det.1 (AA) UH-60A Taegu, RoK Camp Walker 542.MedCo (AA) UH-60A Chunchon, RoK Camp Page 542.MedCo/Det.1 (AA) UH-60A Tongduchon-Ni, RoK Camp Casey 19.TSC Taegu,RoK Camp Henry C.Co/52.Av (AVIM) UH-60A Pyongtaek, RoK Camp Humphreys/Desiderio AAF G.Co/52.Av (AVIM) UH-60A Hoengsong, RoK Camp Eagle
2nd Infantry Division (Light) "Warriors" - Pacific, Major Military and Naval Central Command Centers HQ Co Uijongbu, RoK Camp Red Cloud DivSuppCom Tongduchon-Ni, RoK Camp Casey C.Co/2.Av (AVIM) no helicopter assigned Uijongbu, RoK Camp Stanley / Cochran AAF 2.AvBrig Uijongbu,RoK Camp Stanley/Cochran AAF 1.Bat/2.Av (ATK) AH-64D Chunchon, RoK Camp Page 2.Bat/2.Av (AHB) Uijongbu,RoK Camp Stanley / Cochran AAF 2.Bat/2.Av/A.Co (AHC) UH-60L Uijongbu, RoK Camp Stanley / Cochran AAF 2.Bat/2.Av/B.Co (AHC) UH-60L Uijongbu, RoK Camp Stanley / Cochran AAF 2.Bat/2.Av/C.Co (CMD) UH-60A,EH-60C,OH-58D Uijongbu,RoK Camp Stanley / Cochran AAF 2.Bat/2.Av/D.Co (AVUM) Uijongbu, RoK Camp Stanley/Cochran AAF 4.Sq/7.Cav Munsan,RoK Camp Garry Owen 4.Sq/7.Cav/D.Trp (ACT) OH-58D Tonggo-Ri, RoK Camp Stanton 4.Sq/7.Cav/E.Trp (ACT) OH-58D Tonggo-Ri, RoK Camp Stanton 4.Sq/7.Cav/F.Trp (AVUM) Tonggo-Ri, RoK Camp Stanton
Tactical Major Military and Naval Central Pacific West Command Center Abreviations:
AA = Air Ambulance AAF = Army Airfield
ACT = Air Cavalry Troop AE = Aerial Exploitation AHC = Assault helicopter company ATK = Attack ATS = Air traffic service AvSuppBat = Aviation support battalion AVUM = Aviation unit maintenance AVIM = Aviation intermediate maintenance Bks = Barracks CAC = Command and control CMD = Command Evac = Evacuation GSAB = General support aviation battalion M = Medium helicopter MI = Military intelligence RC = Reserve component SAC = Support aviation company
United States Army Pacific Command (USARPAC) Major Military and Naval Pacific West Central Command Centers. The
U. S. Army, Pacific serves as the Army Component Command to the Commander
in Chief U. S. Pacific Command (USCINCPAC), less the geographic area of Korea.
USARPAC commands active U. S. Army and U. S. Army Reserve forces in Alaska,
Hawaii, Japan, and in possessions and trust territories administered by the
United States in US Pacific command.
USARPAC in 2000 became a Multi-Component
Unit (MCU) and Army Service Component Command (ASCC) as part of the US Army
transformation to meet the emerging security needs of the United States in
which USARPAC continues to be a key strategic player. The whole idea of the
multi-component unit is to give active army units additional resources to
accomplish the mission. The multi-component integration is important in the
overall picture of the Army's success going into the 21st century. With the
Reserve and National Guard assuming a more active role in total Army operations
and the "One Team, One Fight, One Future" concept, multi-component integration
provides for a better understanding of each component's role in achieving
victory.
USARPAC trains Army Forces for support of military operations
and peacetime engagements in order to contribute to decisive victory and
promote regional stability. USARPAC solicits, awards, and administers contracts
in support of mission-related requirements, including administrative supplies
and services, waste disposal, food services, minor construction, facilities,
maintenance and repair, grounds maintenance, ADP equipment and services,
and laundry services.
Following World War II, numerous Army headquarters
in the central Pacific were consolidated with the goal of forming a single
Army command based in Hawaii. In 1957, the U.S. Army, Pacific (USARPAC) was
established at Fort Shafter, following inactivation of the Far East Command.
As Army component of the unified command led by the U.S. Commander in Chief
Pacific, USARPAC was assigned a threefold mission: Provide necessary ground
Army combat forces; Support those forces administratively and logistically;
and Provide reserves and contingency plans to meet any ground threat to United
States interests in the Pacific.
On March 23, 1979, The Department
of the Army announced the establishment of the U.S. Army Western Command
(WESTCOM). Then, a decade later, U.S. Army forces in the Pacific were further
consolidated. Army units in Alaska and in Japan were placed under the command
of the Fort Shafter headquarters, which was once again designated U.S. Army,
Pacific. The new command was formally reestablished on August 30, 1990.
Army
forces in the Pacific since the end of the Vietnam War have participated
in major peacekeeping operations in the Sinai Desert, and have provided humanitarian
and disaster relief missions in Bangladesh, the Philippines, Guam, and the
island of Kauai.
USARPAC soldiers, fully trained for warfare, are
also skilled in conducting operations other than war. Whether it is assuring
order among refugees at Guantanamo, providing flood relief in the deltas
of South Asia, or maintaining a cease fire in the Middle East, USARPAC personnel
operate far and wide in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. In late 1994,
fully one half of the 25th Infantry Division deployed to Haiti as the United
States and other governments worked to restore democracy to that unfortunate
nation. Two years later, USARPAC peacekeepers went to Bosnia to help restore
hope to that warshattered land.
Joint Rear Area Coordination (JRAC)
The
United States Army Pacific (USARPAC), Partnerships with local, state and
federal authorities, develops plans of preparedness for the state of Hawaii.
The Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, has identified the USARPAC as the
executive agent for joint rear area coordination (JRAC). This task is normally
accomplished in a wartime theater of operation, but in this case, it is being
accomplished for the state of Hawaii. Teaming with local and state civil
organizations and federal agencies, JRAC-Hawaii (HI) has accomplished a significant
amount in the short time since Sept. 11.
JRAC-HI Protects its military
installations by reducing and restricting entry points using roving patrols.
Guard duties have completely changed. Guards must now understand the changing
dynamics of a more dangerous world, and must learn to expect the unexpected.
Military installations worldwide are now on the front lines and are the subject
of surveillance and probes more than ever before. Guards must be more alert
to activities both on and off the installations, and they must constantly
vary security procedure patterns to eliminate predictability. They must also
be linked to local law enforcement and must be the beneficiaries — and target
audience — of a regular joint and interagency intelligence summary. Because
of these changing conditions, JRAC-HI reinstituted more formalized guard
mounts and instructions — tailored to the current operational environment.
JRAC-HI Identified mission essential or vulnerable areas (MEVAs)
both on and off the installations. MEVAs are facilities and capabilities
essential to accomplishing the military mission. These MEVAs have been thoroughly
assessed and security needs addressed. Tailored after general defense plan
(GDP) battle books from the Cold War in Europe, MEVA folders detail every
aspect relevant to the defense of these critical sites. Local civil authorities
have done the same with over 150 of their own MEVAs and both the civil and
military authorities regularly conduct site surveys.
JRAC-HI Sets
procedures for providing military support to civil authorities (MSCA) in
the event of a natural or man-made disaster. As the executive agent for MSCA
in Hawaii, American Samoa, and neighboring islands, JRAC-HI provides a defense-coordinating
officer to coordinate military support of civilian consequence management
operations. Even before Sept. 11, JRAC-HI maintained a close relationship
with local and state government leaders, who can leverage many standing MSCA
concepts and plans as the JRAC operation comes together. JRAC-HI's participation
in steering committees and plenary groups, such as the Hawaii Emergency Preparedness
Executive Committee, the Hawaii Energy Council and the Joint Armed Services/State
of Hawaii Civil Defense Coordinating Committee, is instrumental in sharing
information and developing joint and civil-military solutions to emerging
challenges.
JRAC-HI Established quick reaction forces (QRFs) drawn
from both U.S. Marine Corps and Army units. These QRFs are capable of moving
on short notice by air or road to any place in the state to provide additional
security or to assist in any other way. While awaiting adjudication at the
national level on the procedures for employing those forces in domestic situations,
JRAC-HI is regularly conducting joint training with civil authorities.
JRAC-HI
Works to identify seams in its collective efforts to secure Hawaii's soil
and people. This coordination is taking place with all the military services
in Hawaii, state and local civil defense (CD), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), National
Guard (NG), Honolulu Police Department (HPD), fire departments, and a host
of other local and federal government agencies such as the state health and
transportation departments. Also included in this effort are the FBI, Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), U.S. Customs Service (USCS) and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), as well as selected private firms and enterprises
involved in supporting Hawaii's critical infrastructure. The Joint Interagency
Planning Group, established by USARPAC within days of the attacks, has been
the principal driver behind this effort.
Pacific Westcom, The
Pacific West Coast Command Center, Your Pacific West Coast Command Center
for Pacific West Coast News, Weather and Pacific West Coast Information
Patriot
US Patriot, CDF Civil Defense Force, Pacific Westcom, CDF, US Patriot Central
Command Center, Supporting and Educating United States Civil State Militia
and Citizen Minute Men at the borders and in our communities
.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
The Convention,
according to the order of the day, again resolved itself into a committee
of the whole Convention, to take into further consideration the proposed
plan of government. Mr. WYTHE in the chair.
[The 8th section still under consideration. See page 378.]
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?
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, &c. 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?
Mr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman,
I will endeavor to follow the rule of the house, but must pay due attention
to the observations which fell from the gentleman. I should conclude, from
abstracted reasoning, that they were ill founded I should think that, if
there were any object which the general government ought to command, it would
be the direction of the national forces. And as the force which lies in militia is most safe, the direction of that part ought to be {413} submitted to, in order to render another force unnecessary. The power objected to is necessary, because it is to be employed for national purposes.
It is necessary to be given to every government. This is not opinion, but
fact. The highest authority may be given, that the want of such authority
in the government protracted the late war, and prolonged its calamities.
He says that one ground
of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution, was, that a standing army
was quartered upon us. This was not the whole complaint. We complained because it was done without the >>>local<<< authority of this country without the consent of the people of America.
As to the exclusion of standing armies in the bill of rights of the states,
we shall find that though, in one or two of them, there is something like
a prohibition, yet, in most of them, it is only provided that no armies shall
be kept without the legislative authority; that is, without the consent of the community itself. Where is the impropriety of saying that we shall have all army, if necessary?
Does not the notoriety of this constitute security? If inimical nations were
to fall upon us when defenceless, what would be the consequence? Would it
be wise to say, that we should have no defence? Give me leave to say, that
the only possible way to provide against standing armies is to make them unnecessary.
The way to do this is to organize and discipline our militia,
so as to render them capable of defending the country against external invasions
and internal insurrections. But it is urged that abuses may happen. How is
it possible to answer objections against the possibility of abuses? It must
strike every logical reasoner, that these cannot be entirely provided against.
I really thought that the objection in the militia was at an end. Was there ever a constitution, in which if authority was vested, it must not have been executed by force, if resisted?
Was it not in the contemplation of this state, when contemptuous proceedings
were expected, to recur to something of this kind? How is it possible to
have a more proper resource than this? That the laws of every country ought
to be executed, cannot be denied. That force must be used if necessary, cannot
be denied. Can any government be established, that will answer any put, pose
whatever, unless force be provided for executing its {414} laws? The Constitution does not say that a standing army shall be called out to execute the laws. Is not this a more proper way? The militia ought to be called forth to suppress smugglers. Will this be denied?
The case actually happened at Alexandria. There were a number of smugglers,
who were too formidable for the civil power to overcome. The military quelled
the sailors, who otherwise would have perpetrated their intentions. Should
a number of smugglers have a number of ships, the militia ought to be called forth to quell them.
We do not know but what there may be a combination of smugglers in Virginia
hereafter. We all know the use made of the Isle of Man. It was a general
depository of contraband goods. The Parliament found the evil so great, as to render it necessary to wrest it out of the hands of its possessor.
The honorable gentleman says that it is a government of force. If he means military force, the clause under consideration proves the contrary. There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty (APP warning note
of how this founder perceived government - note the differences of the two
Patrick Henery presents government only by consent, James Madison, an institution
once established to make people do their "duty"... defined by who?). A government leaving it to a man to do his duty or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government (APP note,
which in the end we have in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the division
of powers are defined, and both fears even the following are resolved for
the greater part from the debates),
or rather no government at all. The ingenuity of the gentleman is remarkable
in introducing the riot act of Great Britain. That act has no connection,
or analogy, to any regulation of the militia; nor is there any thing in the Constitution to warrant the general government to make such an act. It
never was a complaint, in Great Britain, that the militia could be called
forth. If riots should happen, the militia are proper to quell it, to prevent
a resort to another mode. As to the infliction of ignominious punishments,
we have no ground of alarm, if we consider the circumstances of the people
at large. There will be no punishments so ignominious as have been inflicted
already. The militia law of every state to the north of Maryland is less
rigorous than the particular law of this state. If a change be necessary
to be made by the general government, it will be in our favor. I think that
the people of those states would not agree to be subjected to a more harsh
punishment than their own militia laws inflict. 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". I conceive that we are peculiarly interested in giving the general government as extensive means as possible to protect us.
If there be a particular discrimination between places in America, the Southern
States are, from their situation and circumstances, most interested in giving
the national government the power of protecting its members.
[Here Mr. Madison made some other observations, but spoke so very low, that his meaning could not be comprehended.]
---------------------------------------------------- |
|
APP Study Note on Madison's statement: "What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty".
This illustrates one of the major differences between federalism by a federalist, and true freedom as defined.
Madison on "this point" is wholly incorrect
in regards to the Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772, (however correct
in all tyrannical governments) and is proven by long standing documents regarding
laws on freedom and liberty. The closing statement on this page shows the
dismay regarding these past rights by Mr. NICHOLAS in that such Rights "had been frequently violated with impunity." A
condition that had been the aim of correcting by the Declaration of Independence,
and the purpose of defending the retainment of such protections by the Anti
Federalists when debating the Constitution - resulting in the Bill of Rights,
which in fact made us a new species of government, as spoke of by
Madison, that now protects freedoms throughout the world because those Rights
are not violated with impunity; and such care needs be taken to make sure
that they are never treated in such a way.
1.) The Absolute Rights of the Colonists:
"The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people"
"The Legislative cannot Justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by promulgated, standing and known laws, and authorized independent Judges;" that is independent as far as possible of Prince or People.
2.) Declaration of Independence:
That
all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
3.) The Constitution:
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XIII: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, "except" as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
4.) Declaration of Independence:
that,
whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new
government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.
APP: Here we have the purpose of a Free government is: (numbers corresponding)
1.) Not to make anyone do anything, but only to see that "Justice" is dispenced. "Justice" keeps one from doing something to another, or punishes one when he does do something to another, without his consent.
Note: Do not confuse this "duty" mentioned here of arbitrary state or federal law to force service to the country, with enforcing laws on persons who infringe against just and necessary civil law; This is a separate issue in the second part, when one is found taking "inalienable" rights, property and liberty from another, as this has to do with crime; In the first part, forcing someone to do their duty at the beck and call of the state is a crime, as clearly defined in the second part..
Justice has nothing to do with making someone do something, or do something to someone else, without their consent. That type of action is defined as "Tyranny".
2.)
If you can be made to do anything, you have no liberty and without the ability
to consent you have no freedom. And I guarantee if someone is "made" or forced
to do "their duty" by any government, they will not be pursuing happiness....
Which is an inalienable right.
3.) Any Type of slavery (voluntary
or involuntary); or Involuntary Servitude is strictly prohibited. i.e. the
Draft or other forced service.
4.) There is the "Duty", and it is absolutely opposite of Madison's statement.
It is the duty of any free man or free state to throw out any government
that attempts to "make" someone "do" anything without their "consent".
Forcing someone to do something that he does not want to do, only seems reasonable
or of great reason to the one that is doing the forcing, (whether a government
or person); And by his (anyone's) actions he defines himself as a Tyrant.
A
few years later James Madison had to defend an attack on his great optimisms,
when he came to realize the dangers spoke of by Patrick Henry and George
Mason were quite real; To his credit, Madison left the federalists to join
Thomas Jefferson not long after the Constitution was ratified; This was to
write with Jefferson the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
(which see) in response and opposition to the Alien and Sedition Act. These
resolutions clarified the powers of the states over the federal government,
and the very limited delegated power of the federal government.
(end APP)
------------------
Madison continues:
An
act passed, a few years ago, in this state, to enable the government to call
forth the militia to enforce the laws when a powerful combination should
take place to oppose them. This is the same power which the Constitution
is to have. There is a great deal of difference between calling forth the
militia, when a combination is formed to prevent the execution of the laws,
and the sheriff or constable carrying with him a body of militia to execute
them in the first instance; which is a construction not warranted by the clause.
There is an act, also, in this state, empowering the officers of the customs
to summon any persons to assist them when they meet with obstruction in executing
their duty. This shows the necessity of giving the government power to call
forth the militia when the laws are resisted. It is a power vested in every
legislature in the Union, and which is necessary to every government. He
then moved that the clerk should read those acts which were accordingly read.
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 practised. This, said he, is the opinion of many worthy men, not only in this Convention, but in all parts of America.
These laws could only show that the legislature of this state could pass
such acts. He thought they militated against the cession of this power to
Congress, because the state governments could call forth the militia when
necessary, so as to compel a submission to the laws; and as they were competent
to it, Congress ought not to have the power. The meeting of three or four persons might be called an insurrection, and the militia might be called out to disperse them. He was not satisfied with {416} the explanation of the word "organization" by the gentleman in the military line, (Mr. Lee.)
He thought they were not
confined to the technical explanation, but that Congress could inflict severe
and ignominious punishments on the militia, as a necessary incident
to the power of organizing and disciplining them. The gentleman had said
there was no danger, because the laws respecting the militia were less rigid
in the other states than this. This was no conclusive argument. His fears, as he had before expressed, were, that grievous punishments would be inflicted, in order to render the service disagreeable to the militia themselves, and induce them to wish its abolition, which would afford a pretence for establishing a standing army. (APP Note: This has already happened) He was convinced the state governments ought to have the control of the militia, except when they were absolutely necessary for general purposes. The gentleman had said that they would be only subject to martial law when in actual service. He demanded what was to hinder Congress from inflicting it always, and making a general law for the purpose.
If so, said he, it must finally produce, most infallibly, the annihilation
of the state governments. These were his apprehensions; but he prayed God they might be groundless.
Mr. MADISON replied, that the obvious explanation was, that the states were to appoint the officers, and govern all the militia except that part which was called into the actual service of the United States. He asked, if power were given to the general government, if we must not give it executive power to use it. The vice of the old system was, that Congress could not execute the powers nominally vested in them. If the contested clause were expunged, this system would have nearly the same defect.
Mr. HENRY wished to know what authority the state governments had over the militia.
Mr. MADISON answered, that the
state governments might do what they thought proper with the militia, when
they were not in the actual service of the United States. They might make use of them to suppress insurrections, quell riots, and call on the general government for the militia of any other state, to aid them, if necessary.
Mr. HENRY replied that,
as the clause expressly vested the general government with power to call
them out to suppress {417} insurrections, it appeared to him, most decidedly,
that the power of suppressing insurrections was exclusively given to Congress.
If it remained in the states, it was by implication.
Mr. CORBIN, after a short
address to the chair, in which he expressed extreme reluctance to get up,
said, that all contentions on this subject might be ended, by adverting to
the 4th section of the 4th article, which provides, "that the
United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form
of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on application
of the legislature, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be
convened,) against domestic violence. "He thought this section gave the states power to use their own militia, and call on Congress for the militia of other states.
He observed that our representatives were to return every second year to
mingle with their fellow-citizens. He asked, then, how, in the name of God,
they would make laws to destroy themselves. The gentleman had told us that nothing could be more humiliating than that the state governments
could not control the general government. He thought the gentleman might
as well have complained that one county could not control the state at large. Mr. Corbin then said that all confederate governments had the care of the national defence,
and that Congress ought to have it. Animadverting on Mr. Henry's observations,
that the French had been the instruments of their own slavery, that the Germans
had enslaved the Germans, and the Spaniards the Spaniards, &c., he asked
if those nations knew any thing of representation. The want of "this knowledge" was the "principal" cause of their bondage. He concluded by observing that the general government had no power but such as the state government had, and that arguments against the one held against the other.
Mr. GRAYSON, in reply to Mr. Corbin, said he
was mistaken when he produced the 4th section of the 4th article, to prove
that the state governments had a right to intermeddle with the militia. He was of opinion that a previous application must be made to the federal head, by the legislature when in session, or otherwise
by the executive of any state, before they could interfere with the militia.
In his opinion, no instance could be adduced where the states could employ
the militia; for, in all the cases wherein they could be {418} employed,
Congress had the exclusive direction and control of them. Disputes, he
observed, had happened in many countries, where this power should be lodged.
In England, there was a dispute between the Parliament and King Charles who
should have power over the militia. Were this government well organized,
he would not object to giving it power over the militia. But as it appeared to him to be without checks, and to tend to the formation of an aristocratic body, he could not agree to it. Thus organized, his imagination did not reach so far as to know where this power should be lodged. He conceived the state governments to be at the mercy of the generality. He wished to be open to conviction, but he could see no case where the states could command the militia. He
did not believe that it corresponded with the intentions of those who formed
it, and it was altogether without an equilibrium.
He humbly apprehended that the power of providing for organizing and disciplining
the militia, enabled the government to make laws for regulating them, and
inflicting punishments for disobedience, neglect, &c. Whether it would
be the spirit of the generality to lay unusual punishments, he knew not;
but he thought they had the power, if they thought proper to exercise it.
He thought that, if there was a constructive implied power left in the states, yet, as the line was not clearly marked between the two governments, it would create differences. He
complained of the uncertainty of the expression, and wished it to be so clearly
expressed that the people might see where the states could interfere.
As the exclusive power of arming, organizing, was given to Congress, they might entirely neglect them; or they might be armed in one part of the Union, and totally neglected in another. This he apprehended to be a probable circumstance. In this he might be thought suspicious; but he was justified by what bad happened in other countries. |
|
He wished to know what attention had been paid to the militia of Scotland
and Ireland since the union, and what laws had been made to regulate them.
There is, says Mr. Grayson, an excellent militia law in England, and such
as I wish to be established by the general government. They have thirty thousand
select militia in England. But the militia of Scotland and Ireland are neglected.
I see the necessity of the concentration of the forces of the Union. {419}
I acknowledge that militia are the best means of quelling insurrections,
and that we have an advantage over the English government, for their regular
forces answer the purpose. But I object to the want of checks, and a line of discrimination between the state governments and the generality.
Mr. JOHN MARSHALL asked
if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments
had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were,
he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they
were mistaken. The
state governments did not derive their powers from the general government;
but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act
according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if
powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could
any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.
For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is "not taken away"; for the Constitution does not say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also". The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive.
The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it
was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there
be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative
words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the states. To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption.
Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application
to Congress, because Congress can interpose! Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast? I will show {420} that there could not be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power. All
the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where
an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th
section of the 1st article. This power is not included in the restrictions
in that section. But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last
part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or
in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded, they "can" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary. The worthy member last up objects to the Continental government's possessing the power of disciplining the militia, because, though all its branches be derived from the people, he says they will form an aristocratic government, unsafe and unfit to be trusted.
Mr. GRAYSON answered, that he only said it was so constructed as to form a great aristocratic body.
Mr. MARSHALL replied, that
he was not certain whether he understood him; but he thought he had said
so. He conceived that, as the government was drawn from the people, the feelings and interests of the people would be attended to,
and that we should be safe in granting them power to regulate the militia.
When the government is drawn from the people, continued Mr. Marshall, and
depending on the people for its continuance, oppressive measures will not be attempted, as they will certainly draw on their authors the resentment of those on whom they depend. On this government, thus depending on ourselves for its existence, I will rest my safety, notwithstanding the danger depicted by the honorable gentleman.
I cannot help being surprised that the worthy member thought this power so
dangerous. What government is able to protect you in time of war? Will any
state depend on its own exertions? The consequence of such dependence, and
withholding this power from Congress, will be, that state will fall after
state, and be a sacrifice to the want of power in the general government.
United we are strong, divided we fall. Will you prevent the general
government from drawing the militia of one state to another, when the consequence
would be, that every state must depend on itself? The enemy, possessing {421}
the water, can quickly go from one state to another. No state will spare
to another its militia, which it conceives necessary for itself. It requires
a Superintending power, in order to call forth the resources of all to protect
all. If this be not done, each state will fall a sacrifice. This system merits
the highest applause in this respect. The honorable gentleman
said that a general regulation may be made to inflict punishments. Does he
imagine that a militia law is to be ingrafted on the scheme of government,
so as to render it incapable of being changed? The idea of the worthy member
supposes that men renounce their own interests. This would produce general
inconveniences throughout the Union, and would be equally opposed by all
the states. But the worthy member fears, that in one part of the Union they
will be regulated and disciplined, and in another neglected. This danger
is enhanced by leaving this power to each state; for some states may attend
to their militia, and others may neglect them. If Congress neglect our militia, "we can arm them ourselves".>>>>Cannot
Virginia "import arms?<<<< >>>>Cannot she put
them into the hands of >>> "her"<<< >>> militia-men?<<<
He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, because, being >>>possessed of it<<< antecedent to the adoption of the government, and >>>not being divested of it<<< by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as >>>fully possessed of it as ever they had been.<<< And
it could not be said that the states derived any powers from that system,
>>>but retained them,<<< >>>though not acknowledged
in any part of it<<<. |
|
Mr. GRAYSON acknowledged that all power was drawn from the people. But
he could see none of those checks which ought to characterize a free government.
It had not such checks as even the British government had. He thought it so organized as to form an aristocratic body.
If we looked at the democratic branch, and the great extent of country, he
said, it must be considered, in a great degree, to be an aristocratic representation.
As they were elected with craving appetites, and wishing for emoluments,
they might unite with the other two branches. They might give reciprocally
good offices to one another, and mutually protect each other; for he considered
them all as united in interest, and as but one branch. There was no
check to prevent such {422} a combination; nor, in cases of concurrent powers,
was there a line drawn to prevent interference between the state governments
and the generality.
Mr. HENRY still retained his opinion, that the states had no right to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections, (APP note: This statement is in reference to the document)
But the right interpretation (and such as the nations of the earth had put
upon the concession of power) was that, when power was given, it was given
exclusively. He appealed to the committee, if power was not confined in the
hands of a few in almost all countries of the world. He referred to their candor,
if the construction of conceded power was not an exclusive concession, in
nineteen twentieth parts of the world. The nations which retained their liberty
were comparatively few. America would add to the number of the oppressed nations, if she depended on constructive rights and argumentative implication. That the powers given to Congress were exclusively given, was very obvious to him. The rights which the states had must be founded on the restrictions on Congress. He asked, if the doctrine which had been so often circulated, that rights not given were retained, was true, why there were negative clauses to restrain Congress. He told gentlemen that
these clauses were sufficient to shake all their implication; for, says he,
if Congress had no power but that given to them, why restrict them by negative
words? Is not the clear implication this that, if these restrictions were not inserted, they could have performed what they prohibit?
The worthy member had said
that Congress ought to have power to protect all, and had given this system
the highest encomium. But he insisted that the power over the militia was
concurrent. To obviate the futility of this doctrine, Mr. Henry alleged that it was not reducible to practice.
Examine it, says he; reduce it to practice. Suppose an insurrection in Virginia,
and suppose there be danger apprehended of an insurrection in another state,
from the exercise of the government; or suppose a national war, and there
be discontents among the people of this state, that produce, or threaten,
an insurrection; suppose Congress, in either case, demands a number of militia,
will they not be obliged to go? Where are your reserved rights, when your militia go to a neighboring state? Which call is to be obeyed, the congressional call, or the call of the state legislature? The call of Congress must be obeyed. I need not remind this {423} committee that the sweeping clause will cause their demands to be submitted to. This clause enables them "to
make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution
all the powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United
States, or in any department or officer thereof." Mr. Chairman, I will turn to another clause, which relates to the same subject, and tends to show the fallacy of their argument.
The 10th section of the 1st article, to which reference was made by the worthy member, militates against himself.
It says, that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded." If
you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it?
What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war,
but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection
of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore,
suppress it without the interposition of Congress. The 4th section of the
4th article expressly directs that, in case of domestic violence, Congress
shall protect the states on application of the legislature or executive;
and the 8th section of the 1st article gives Congress power to call forth
the militia to quell insurrections: there cannot, therefore, be a concurrent
power. The "state" legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of the militia, when necessary.
Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous.
The states cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous,
without an application to Congress. So long a delay may be fatal.
There are three clauses which prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia. (APP Note: Speaking of the document)
The clause giving Congress power to call them out to suppress insurrections,
that which restrains a state from engaging in war except when actually invaded;
and that which requires Congress to protect the states against domestic violence,
render it impossible that a state can have power to intermeddle with them. Will not Congress find refuge for their actions in these clauses? With respect to the concurrent jurisdiction, it is a political monster of absurdity. We
have passed that clause which gives Congress an unlimited authority over
the national wealth; and here is an unbounded control over the national strength. Notwithstanding {424} this
clear, unequivocal relinquishment of the power of controlling the militia,
you say the states retain it, for the very purposes given to congress.
Is it fair to say that you give the power of arming the militia, and at the
same time to say you reserve it? This great national government ought not to be left in this condition. If it be, it will terminate in the destruction of our liberties. |
|
Mr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman,
let me ask this committee, and the honorable member last up, what we are
to understand from this reasoning. The power must be vested in Congress,
or in the state governments; or there must be a division or concurrence.
He is against division. It is a political monster. He will not give it to
Congress for fear of oppression. Is it to be vested in the state governments?
If so, where is the provision for general defence? If ever America should
be attacked, the states would fall successively. It will prevent them from
giving aid to their sister states; for, as each state will expect to be attacked,
and wish to guard against it, each will retain its own militia for its own
defence. Where is this power to be deposited, then, unless in the general
government, if it be dangerous to the public safety to give it exclusively
to the states? If it must be divided, let him show a better manner of doing
it than that which is in the Constitution. I cannot agree with the other
honorable gentleman, that there is no check. There is a powerful check in
that paper. The state governments are to govern the militia when not called forth for general national purposes; and Congress is to govern such part only as may be in the actual service of the Union. Nothing can be more certain and positive than this. It expressly empowers Congress to govern them when in the service of the United States. It is, then, "clear" that the states govern them "when they are not".
(APP Note: The danger that presents itself now, is that the state "militias" once controlled by the state and it's Governor when not in foreign service have been simulated into the standing army as a "National Guard" so that all military men are "always in the service of the United States"
- where are our independent state militias? Where is our checks to power
clearly intended by the founders to protect each independent state, and if
necessary, against the generality? Gone; but not prohibited to reform and reinstitute by the states themselves should they choose, as clearly indicated by these intents being a right of the state to arm, import arms, and discipline its own militias "outside" the federal government. >>> See again John Marshall's statements above, George Nicholas and Mr. Pendleton's Statements below)
"With respect to suppressing insurrections, I say that those clauses which were mentioned by the honorable gentleman are compatible with a concurrence of the power. By the first, Congress is to call them forth to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions of "foreign powers".
A concurrence in the former case is necessary, because a whole state may
be in insurrection against the Union. What has passed may perhaps justify
this apprehension. The safety of the Union and particular states requires
that the general government should have power to {425} repel "foreign" invasions. The 4th section of the 4th article is perfectly consistent with the exercise of the power by the states. The words are, "The
United States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a republican form
of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on application
of the legislature, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be
convened,) against domestic violence." The word invasion here, after power had been given in the former clause to repel invasions, may be thought tautologous, but it has a different meaning from the other. This clause speaks of a particular state. It means that it shall be protected from invasion by "other states". A republican government is to be guarantied to each state, and they are to be protected from invasion from "other states", as well as from foreign powers;
and, on application by the legislature or executive, as the case may be,
the militia of the other states are to be called to suppress domestic insurrections. Does this bar the states from calling forth their own militia? >>> "No" <<<; but it gives them a supplementary security to suppress insurrections and domestic violence.
The other clause runs in these words: "No state shall,
without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or
ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another
state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." They are restrained from making war, unless invaded, or in imminent danger. When in such danger, they are "not restrained". I can perceive no competition in these clauses.
They cannot be said to be repugnant to a concurrence of the power. If we
object to the Constitution in this manner, and consume our time in verbal
criticism, we shall never put an end to the business.
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the "whole people", except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and {426} rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people.
If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy
fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people
are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as
ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government.
If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause
exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and
from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that
the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case,
we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia.
There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS. Mr.
Chairman, I feel apprehensions lest the subject of our debates should be
misunderstood. Every one wishes to know the true meaning of the system; but
I fear those who hear us will think we are captiously quibbling on words.
We have been told, in the course of this business, that the government will
operate like a screw. Give me leave to say that the exertions of the opposition
are like that instrument. They catch at every thing, and take it into their
vortex. The worthy member says that this government is defective, because
it comes from the people. Its greatest recommendation, with me, is putting
the power in the hands of the people. He disapproves of it because it does
not say in what particular instances the militia shall be called out to execute
the laws. This is a power of the Constitution, and particular instances must
be defined by the legislature. But, says the worthy member, those laws which
have been read are arguments against the Constitution, because they show
that the states are now in possession of the power, and competent to its
execution. {427} Would you leave this power in the states, and by that means
deprive the general government of a power which will be necessary for its
existence? If the state governments find this power necessary, ought not
the general government to have a similar power? But, sir, there is no state
check in this business. The gentleman near me has shown that there is a very important check.
Another worthy member says
there is no power in the states to quell an insurrection of slaves. Have
they it now? If they have, does the Constitution take it away? If it does,
it must be in one of the three clauses which have been mentioned by the worthy
member. The first clause gives the general government power to call them
out when necessary. Does this take it away from the states? >>> No <<<. But it gives an additional security; for, besides the power in the state governments to >>> use their "own" militia <<<, it will be the duty of the general government to aid them with the strength of the Union when called for. >>> No part <<< of this Constitution can show that this power is taken away.
But an argument is drawn
from that clause which says "that no state shall engage in war unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." What does
this prohibition amount to? It must be a war with a foreign enemy that the
states are prohibited from making; for the exception to the restriction proves
it. The restriction includes only offensive hostility, as they are at liberty
to engage in war when invaded, or in imminent danger. They are, therefore, not restrained from quelling domestic insurrections, which are totally different from making war with a foreign power.
But the great thing to be dreaded is that, during an insurrection, the militia
will be called out from the state. This is his kind of argument. Is it possible that, at such a time, the general government would order the militia to be called?
It is a groundless objection, to work on gentlemen's apprehensions within
these walls. As to the 4th article, it was introduced wholly for the particular
aid of the states. A republican form of government is guarantied, and protection
is secured against invasion and domestic violence on application. Is not
this a guard as strong as possible? Does it not exclude the unnecessary interference of Congress in business of this sort?
The gentleman over the
way cannot tell who will be the {428} militia at a future day, and enumerates
dangers of select militia. Let me attend to the nature of gentlemen's objections.
One objects because there will be select militia; another objects because
there will be no select militia; and yet both oppose it on these contradictory
principles. If you deny the general government the power of calling out the
militia, there must be a recurrence to a standing army. If you are really
jealous of your liberties, confide in Congress.
Mr. MASON rose, and said that he was totally misunderstood. The contrast between his friend's objection and his was improper.
His friend had mentioned the propriety of having select militia, like those
of Great Britain, who should be more thoroughly exercised than the militia
at large could possibly be. But he, himself, had not spoken of a selection
of militia, but of the exemption of the highest classes of the people
from militia service; which would justify apprehensions of severe and ignominious
punishments. |
|
Mr. NICHOLAS wished to
know whether the representatives of the people would consent to such exemptions,
as every man who had twenty-five acres of land could vote for a federal representative.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman,
I conceive that the power of providing and maintaining a navy is at present
dangerous, however warmly it may be urged by gentlemen that America ought
to become a maritime power. If we once give such power, we put it in the
hands of men whose interest it will be to oppress us. It will also irritate
the nations of Europe against us. Let us consider the situation of the maritime
powers of Europe: they are separated from us by the Atlantic Ocean. The riches
of all those countries come by sea. Commerce and navigation are the principal
sources of their wealth. If we become a maritime power, we shall be able
to participate in their most beneficial business. Will they suffer us to
put ourselves in a condition to rival them? I believe the first step of any
consequence, which will be made towards it, will bring war upon us. Their
ambition and avarice most powerfully impel them to prevent our becoming a
naval nation. We should, on this occasion, consult our ability. Is there
any gentleman here who can say that America can support a navy? The riches
of America are not sufficient to bear the enormous expense it must certainly
occasion. I may be supposed to exaggerate, {429} but I leave it to the committee
to judge whether my information be right or not.
It is said that shipwrights
can be had on better terms in America than in Europe; but necessary materials
are so much dearer in America than in Europe, that the aggregate sum would
be greater. A seventy-four gun ship will cost you ninety-eight thousand pounds,
including guns, tackle, &c. According to the usual calculation in England,
it will cost you the further sum of forty-eight thousand pounds to mail it,
furnish provisions, and pay officers and men. You must pay men more here
than in Europe, because, their governments being arbitrary, they can command
the services of their subjects without an adequate compensation; so that,
in all, the expenses of such a vessel would be one hundred and forty thousand
pounds in one year. Let gentlemen consider, then, the extreme difficulty
of supporting a navy, and they will concur with me, that America cannot do
it. I have no objection to such a navy as will not excite the jealousy of
the European countries. But I would have the Constitution to say, that no
greater number of ships should be had than would be sufficient to protect
our trade. Such a fleet would not, probably, offend the Europeans. I am not
of a jealous disposition; but when I consider that the welfare and happiness
of my country are in danger, I beg to be excused for expressing my apprehensions.
Let us consider how this navy shall be raised. What would be the consequence
under those general words, "to provide and maintain a navy"? All the vessels
of the intended fleet would be built and equipped in the Northern States,
where they have every necessary material and convenience for the purpose.
Will any gentleman say that any ship of war can be raised to the south of
Cape Charles? The consequence will be that the Southern States will be in
the power of the Northern States.
We should be called upon
for our share of the expenses, without having equal emoluments. Can it be
supposed, when this question comes to be agitated in Congress, that the Northern
States will not take such measures as will throw as much circulating money
among them as possible, without any consideration as to the other states?
If I know the nature of man, (and I believe I do,) they will have no consideration
for us. But, supposing it were not so, America {430} has nothing at all to
do with a fleet. Let us remain for some time in obscurity, and rise by degrees.
Let us not precipitately provoke the resentment of the maritime powers of
Europe. A well-regulated militia ought to be the defence of this country.
In some of our constitutions it is said so. This Constitution should have
inculcated the principle, Congress ought to be under some restraint in this
respect. Mr. Grayson then added, that the Northern States would be principally
benefited by having a fleet; that a majority of the states could vote the
raising a great navy, or enter into any commercial regulation very detrimental
to the other states. In the United Netherlands there was much greater security,
as the commercial interest of no state could be sacrificed without its own
consent. The raising a fleet was the daily and favorite subject of conversation
in the Northern States. He apprehended that, if attempted, it would draw
us into a war with Great Britain or France. As the American fleet would not
be competent to the defence of all the states, the Southern States would be most exposed.
He referred to the experience of the late war, as a proof of what he said.
At the period the Southern States were most distressed, the Northern States, he said, were most happy. They had privateers in abundance,
whereas we had but few. Upon the whole, he thought we should depend on our
troops on shore, and that it was very impolitic to give this power to Congress
without any limitation.
Mr. NICHOLAS remarked that
the gentleman last up had made two observations the one, that we ought not
to give Congress power to raise a navy; and the other, that we had not the
means of supporting it. Mr. Nicholas thought it a false doctrine. Congress,
says he, has a discretionary power to do it when necessary. They are not
hound to do it in five or ten years, or at any particular time. It is presumable,
therefore, that they will postpone it until it be proper.
Mr. GRAYSON had no objection
to giving Congress the power of raising such a fleet as suited the circumstances
of the country. But he could not agree to give that unlimited power which
was delineated in that paper.
Adverting to the clause
investing Congress with the power of exclusive legislation in a district
not exceeding ten miles square, he said he had before expressed his doubts
that this {431} district would be the favorite of the generality, and that
it would be possible for them to give exclusive privileges of commerce to
those residing within it. He had illustrated what he said by European examples.
It might be said to be impracticable to exercise this power in this manner.
Among the various laws and customs which pervaded Europe, there were exclusive
privileges and immunities enjoyed in many places. He thought that this ought
to be guarded against; for should such exclusive privileges be granted to
merchants residing within the ten miles square, it would be highly injurious
to the inhabitants of other places.
Mr. GEORGE MASON thought that there were few clauses in the Constitution so dangerous as that which gave Congress exclusive power of legislation within ten miles square.
Implication, he observed, was capable of any extension, and would probably
be extended to augment the congressional powers. But here there was no need
of implication. This clause gave them an unlimited authority, in every possible
case, within that district. This ten miles square, says Mr. Mason, may set
at defiance the laws of the surrounding states, and may, like the custom
of the superstitious days of our ancestors, become the sanctuary of the blackest
crimes. Here the federal courts are to sit. We have heard a good deal said of justice.
It has been doubted whether
jury trial be secured in civil eases. But I will suppose that we shall have
juries in civil cases. What sort of a jury shall we have within the ten miles
square? The immediate creatures of the government. What chance will poor
men get, where Congress have the power of legislating in all cases whatever,
and where judges and juries may be under their influence, and bound to support
their operations? Even with juries the chance of justice may here be very
small, as Congress have unlimited authority, legislative, executive, and
judicial. Lest this power should not be sufficient, they have it in every
case. Now, sir, if an attempt should be made to establish tyranny over
the people, here are ten miles square where the greatest offender may meet
protection. If any of their officers, or creatures, should attempt
to oppress the people, or should actually perpetrate the blackest deed, he
has nothing to do but get into the ten miles square. Why was this dangerous
power given? Felons may receive an asylum there and in {432} their strongholds.
Gentlemen have said that it was dangerous to argue against possible abuse,
because there could be no power delegated but might be abused. It is an incontrovertible axiom, that, when the dangers that may arise from the abuse are greater than the benefits that may result from the use, the power ought to be withheld. I do not conceive that this power is at all necessary, though capable of being greatly abused.
We are told by the honorable
gentleman that Holland has its Hague. I confess I am at a loss to know what
inference he could draw from that observation. This is the place where the
deputies of the United Provinces meet to transact the public business. But
I do not recollect that they have any exclusive jurisdiction whatever in
that place, but are subject to the laws of the province in which the Hague is. To what purpose the gentleman mentioned that Holland has its Hague, I cannot see.
Mr. 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. 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. We make suppositions, and afterwards deduce conclusions from them, as if they were established axioms.
But, after all, bring home this question to ourselves. Is it probable that
the members from Georgia, New Hampshire, will concur to sacrifice the privileges
of their friends? I believe that, whatever state may become the seat of the
general {433} government, it will become the object of the jealousy and envy
of the other states. Let me remark, if not already remarked, that there must
be a cession, by particular states, of the district to Congress, and that
the states may settle the terms of the cession. The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend any danger, they may refuse it altogether.
How could the general government be guarded from the undue influence of particular
states, or from insults, without such exclusive power? If it were at the
pleasure of a particular state to control the session and deliberations of
Congress, would they be secure from insults, or the influence of such state?
If this commonwealth depended, for the freedom of deliberation, on the laws
of any state where it might be necessary to sit, would it not be liable to
attacks of that nature (and with more indignity) which have been already
offered to Congress? With respect to the government of Holland, 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".
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. 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 is not to be a fourteenth state. The inhabitants will in no respect whatever
be amenable to the laws of any state. A clause in the 4th article, highly
extolled for its wisdom, will be rendered nugatory by this exclusive legislation.
This clause runs thus: "No person held to service or labor in one state,
under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any
law or regulation therein, be discharged from such {434} service or labor,
but shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such labor or
service may be due." Unless you consider the ten miles square as a state,
persons bound to labor, who shall escape thither, will not be given up; for
they are only to be delivered up after they shall have escaped into a state.
As my honorable friend mentioned, felons, who shall have fled from justice
to the ten miles square, cannot be apprehended. The executive of a state
Is to apply to that of another for the delivery of a felon. He cannot apply
to 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.
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, &c. But how much is already given
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. 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.
[A desultory conversation ensued.]
Mr. NICHOLAS insisted that
as the state, within which the ten miles square might be, could prescribe
the terms on which Congress should hold it, no danger could arise, as no
state would consent to injure itself: there was the same {435} security with
respect to the places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, &c.;
and as to the territory of the United States, the power of Congress only
extended to make needful rules and regulations concerning it, without prejudicing
the claim of any particular state, the
right of territory not being given up; that the grant of those lands to the
United States was for the general benefit of all the states, and >>>not to be perverted to their prejudice<<<;
that, consequently, whether that country were formed into new states or not,
the danger apprehended could not take place; that the seat of government
was to be still a part of the state, and, as to general regulations, was to be considered as such. |
|
Mr. GRAYSON, on the other
hand, contended that the ten miles square could not be viewed as a state;
that the state within which it might be would have no power of legislating
over it; that, consequently, persons bound to labor, and felons, might receive
protection there; that exclusive emoluments might he granted to those residing
within it; that the territory of the United States, being a part of no state
or states, might be appropriated to what use Congress pleased, without the
consent of any state or states; and that, consequently, such exclusive privileges
and exemptions might be granted, and such protection afforded to fugitives,
within such places, as Congress should think proper; that, after mature consideration,
he could not find that the ten miles square was to be looked upon even as
a part of a state, but to be totally independent of all, and subject to the
exclusive legislation of Congress.
Mr. LEE strongly expatiated on the impossibility of securing any human institution from possible abuse. He thought the powers conceded in the paper on the table not so liable to be abused as the powers of the state governments.
Gentlemen had suggested that the seat of government would become a sanctuary
for state villains, and that, in a short time, ten miles square would subjugate
a country of eight hundred miles square. This appeared to him a most improbable
possibility; nay, he might call it impossibility. Were the place crowded
with rogues, he asked if it would be an agreeable place of residence for,
the members of the general government, who were freely chosen by the people
and the state governments. Would the people be so lost to honor and virtue,
as to select men who would willingly {436} associate with the most abandoned
characters? He thought the honorable gentleman's objections against remote
possibility of abuse went to prove that government of no sort was eligible,
but that a state of nature was preferable to a state of civilization. He
apprehended no danger; and thought that persons bound to labor, and felons,
could not take refuge in the ten miles square, or other places exclusively
governed by Congress, because it would be contrary to the Constitution, and
a palpable usurpation, to protect them.
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 tell 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. Mr. Chairman,
I am astonished that the honorable member should launch out into such strong
descriptions without any occasion. Was there ever a legislature in existence
that held their sessions at a place where they had not jurisdiction? I do
not mean such a legislature as they have in Holland; for it deserves not
the name. Their powers are such as Congress have now, which we find not reducible
to practice. If you be satisfied with the shadow and form, instead of the
substance, you will render them dependent on the local authority. Suppose
the legislature of this country should sit in Richmond, while the exclusive
jurisdiction of the place was in some particular county; would this country
think it safe that the general good should be subject to the paramount authority
of a part of the community?
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.
[Here Mr. Madison spoke of the distinction between regulation of police and legislation, but so low he could not be heard.]
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. Madison made several other remarks, which could not be heard] |
|
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.
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)
Why oppose this power?
Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive
privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says.
It could have no operation without the limits of that district. Were Congress
to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East
Indies, it could have no effect the moment it would go without that place;
for their exclusive power is confined to that district. Were they to pass
such a law, it would be nugatory; and every member of the community at large
could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.
This exclusive power is limited to that place solely, for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary.
Will you pardon me when I observe that their construction of the preceding clause does not appear to me to be natural, or warranted by the words.
They say that the state
governments have no power at all over the militia. The power of the general
government to provide for arming and organizing the militia is to introduce
a uniform system of discipline to pervade the United States of America. But
the power of governing the militia, so far as it is in Congress, extends only to such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. When not in their service, Congress has no power to govern them. The states then have the "sole" government of them; and though Congress "may" provide for arming them, and prescribe the "mode" of discipline, yet the states have the authority of training them, according to the uniform discipline prescribed by Congress. But there is nothing to preclude them from arming and disciplining them, should Congress neglect to, do it.
As to calling the militia to execute the laws of the {441} Union, I think
the fair construction is directly opposite to what the honorable member says.
The 4th section of the 4th article contains nothing to warrant the supposition
that the states cannot call them forth to suppress domestic insurrections.
[Here he read the section.] All the restraint here contained is, that Congress may, at their pleasure, on application of the state legislature, or "(in vacation)" of the executive, protect each of the states against domestic violence. This is a restraint on the general government not to interpose. The
state is in "full possession of the power of using its own militia" to protect
itself against domestic violence; and the power in the general government
"cannot be exercised, or interposed", "without the "application of the state itself". This appears to me to be the obvious and fair construction.
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".
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained?
Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved?
I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and "suppose" that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity.
Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general
welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. 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.
Many gentlemen, whom I respect, take different sides of this question. We wish this amendment to be introduced, to remove our apprehensions.
There was a clause in the Confederation reserving to the states respectively
every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United
States. This clause has never been complained of, but approved by all Why
not, then, have a similar clause in this Constitution,
in which it is the more indispensably necessary than in the Confederation,
because of the great augmentation of power vested in the former? In my humble
apprehension, unless there be some such clear and finite expression, this
clause now under consideration will go to any thing our rulers may think
proper. Unless
there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained,
it will be carried to any power Congress may please.
Mr. HENRY moved to read from the 8th to the 13th article of the declaration of rights; which was done.
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in
reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the
same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and
Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power
of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from
its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses.
He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make
such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and
provide for the common defence; >>> that this "general welfare" was united, "not" to "the general power of legislation", but to the >>>particular power<<< of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the "common defence",
that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide
for the common defence, in consequence of this power. The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained "no new grant of power".
To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the
end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the
end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "no" augmentation of power. If,
for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect
taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and
proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition
of power? As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.
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".
Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing.
It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing
for the general defence. The power of providing for the general defence only
extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts,
But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue
of our representatives. This was misrepresented. If I understand it right,
no "new" power can be exercised. As to those which are actually granted, we trust to the fellow-feelings of our representatives; and if we are deceived, we then "trust to altering our {444} government". It appears to me, however, that we can confide in their discharging their powers rightly,
from the peculiarity of their situation, and connection with us. If, sir,
the powers of the former Congress were very inconsiderable, that body did not deserve to have great powers.
It was so constructed that it would be dangerous to invest it with such. 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.
He tells us that the most worthy characters of the country differ as to the
necessity of a bill of rights. It is a simple and plain proposition. It is
agreed upon by all that the people have all power. If they part with any of it, is it necessary to declare that they retain the rest?
Liken it to any similar case. If I have one thousand acres of land, and I
grant five hundred acres of it, must I declare that I retain the other five
hundred? Do I grant the whole thousand acres, when I grant five hundred,
unless I declare that the five hundred I do not give belong to me still? It is so in this case. After granting some powers, the rest must "remain with the people". |
|
Gov. RANDOLPH observed
that he had some objections to the clause. He was persuaded that the construction
put upon it by the gentlemen, on both sides, was erroneous; but he thought
any construction better than going into anarchy.
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.
All governments were drawn from the people, though many were perverted to
their oppression. The government of Virginia, he remarked, was drawn from
the people; yet there were certain great and important rights, which the
people, by their bill of rights, declared to be paramount to the power of the legislature.
He asked, Why should it not be so in this Constitution? Was it because we
were more substantially represented in it than in the state government? If,
in the state government, where the people were substantially and fully represented,
it was necessary that the great rights of human nature should {445} be secure
from the encroachments of the legislature, he asked if it was not more necessary in this government, where they were but inadequately represented? He declared 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".
Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the "necessity of a bill of rights" appears to me to be "greater" in this government "than ever it was in any government before. "I
have observed already, that the sense of the European nations, and particularly
Great Britain, is against the construction of rights being retained which
are not expressly relinquished. I repeat, that all nations have adopted this construction that all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are "impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers",
as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powers. It is so in Great Britain;
for every possible right, which is not reserved to the people by some express
provision or compact, is within the king's prerogative.
It is so in that country which is said to be in such full possession of freedom.
It is so in Spain, Germany, and other parts of the world. Let us consider
the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this
subject. At
the revolution, it must be admitted that it was their sense to set down those
great rights which ought, in all countries, to be held inviolable and sacred.
Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a compact to reserve, expressly,
certain rights.
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. She
is called upon now to abandon them, and dissolve that compact which secured
them to her. She is called upon to accede to another compact, which most
infallibly supersedes and annihilates her present one. Will she do it? This
is the question. If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for, if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it necessary to {446} reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up.
How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united
by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical
attempts of Great Britain? The states were not then contented with implied
reservation. No,
Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right
was retained by the states, respectively, which was not given up to the government
of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the general government.
Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights,
you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw
government that has abandoned all its powers the powers of direct taxation,
the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without
a bill of rights without check, limitation, or control. And still you have
checks and guards; still you keep barriers pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government! You have a bill of rights to defend "you" against the state government, which is "bereaved of all power", and yet you have "none" against Congress, though in fill and exclusive possession of all power! You
arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked
to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity?
What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the "common law" of England to be "in force".
That system of law which has been admired, and "has protected us and our ancestors", is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights. By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are "thrown away".
Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights? By the ancient
common law, the trial of all facts is decided by a jury of impartial men
from the immediate vicinage. This paper speaks of different juries from the
common law in criminal cases; and in civil controversies {447} excludes trial
by jury altogether. There is, therefore, more occasion for the supplementary
check of a bill of rights now than then. Congress, from their general, powers,
may fully go into business of human legislation. They may legislate, in criminal
cases, from treason to the lowest offence petty larceny. They may define
crimes and prescribe punishments. In the definition of crimes, I trust they
will be directed by what wise representatives ought to be governed by. But
when we come to punishments, no latitude ought to be left, nor dependence
put on the virtue of representatives. What says our bill of rights? "that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Are you not, therefore, now calling on those gentlemen who are to compose
Congress, to prescribe trials and define punishments without this control?
Will they find sentiments there similar to this bill of rights? You let them loose; you do more you depart from the genius of your country.
That paper tells you that the trial of crimes shall be by jury, and held
in the state where the crime shall have been committed. Under this extensive
provision, they may proceed in a manner extremely dangerous to liberty: a
person accused may be carried from one extremity of the state to another,
and be tried, not by an impartial jury of the vicinage, acquainted with his
character and the circumstances of the fact, but by a jury unacquainted with
both, and who may be biased against him. Is not this sufficient to alarm
men? How different is this from the immemorial practice of your British ancestors,
and your own! I need not tell you that, by the common law, a number of hundreds
were required on a jury, and that afterwards it was sufficient if the jurors
came from the same county. With less than this the people of England have
never been satisfied. That paper ought to have declared the common law in
force.
In this business of legislation,
your members of Congress will loose the restriction of not imposing excessive
fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
These are prohibited by your declaration of rights. What has distinguished our ancestors? That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment.
But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to
that of the common law. They may {448} introduce the practice of France,
Spain, and Germany of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime. They
will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from
Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening
the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort
confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity. We are then lost and undone.
And can any man think it troublesome, when we can, by a small interference,
prevent our rights from being lost? If you will, like the Virginian government,
give them knowledge of the extent of the rights retained by the people, and
the powers of themselves, they will, if they be honest men, thank you for
it. Will they not wish to go on sure grounds? But
if you leave them otherwise, they will not know how to proceed; and, being
in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than give up powers by
implication.
A
bill of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? That
our rights are reserved. Why not say so? Is it because it will consume too
much paper? Gentlemen's
reasoning against a "bill of rights" does not satisfy me. Without saying
which has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rights is a favorite
thing with the Virginians and the people of the other states likewise. It
may be their prejudice, but the government ought to suit their geniuses;
otherwise, its operation will be unhappy. A bill of rights, even if its necessity
be doubtful, will exclude the possibility of dispute; and, with great submission,
I think the best way is to "have no dispute". In the present
Constitution, they are restrained from issuing general warrants to search
suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission
of a fact, &c. There was certainly some celestial influence governing
those who deliberated on that Constitution; for they have, with the most
cautious and enlightened circumspection, guarded those indefeasible rights
which ought ever to be held sacred! The officers of Congress may come upon
you now, fortified with all the terrors of paramount federal authority. Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows. They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go
into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and {449} measure, every
thing you eat, drink, and wear. They ought to be restrained Within proper
bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as "little as possible" the rights of human nature. This will result from their ""integrity". They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, "expressly" restrained. But whether they will intermeddle with that palladium of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine. |
|
Mr. GRAYSON thought it
questionable whether rights not given up were reserved. A majority of the
states, he observed, had expressly reserved certain important rights by bills
of rights, and
that in the Confederation there was a clause declaring expressly that every
power and right not given up was retained by the states. It was the general sense of America that such a clause was necessary; other, wise, why did they introduce a clause which was totally unnecessary?
It had been insisted, he said, in many parts of America, that a bill of rights
was only necessary between a prince and people, and not in such a government
as this, which was a compact between the people themselves. This did not
satisfy his mind; for so extensive was the power of legislation, in his estimation,
that he doubted whether, when it was once given up, any thing was
retained. He further remarked, that there were some negative clauses in the
Constitution, which refuted the doctrine contended for by the other side.
For instance; the 2d clause of the 9th section of the 1st article provided
that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require
it." And, by the last clause of the same section, "no title of nobility shall
be granted by the United States." Now, if these restrictions had not been
here inserted, he asked whether Congress would not most clearly have had
a right to suspend that great and valuable right, and to grant titles of
nobility. When, in addition to these considerations, he saw they had
an indefinite power to provide for the general welfare, he thought there
were great reasons to apprehend great dangers. He thought, therefore, that there ought to be a bill of rights.
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in
answer to the two gentlemen {450} last up, observed that, though there was
a declaration of rights in the government of Virginia, it was no conclusive
reason that there should be one in this Constitution; for, if it was unnecessary
in the former, its omission in the latter could be no defect. They ought,
therefore, to prove that it was essentially necessary to be inserted in the
Constitution of Virginia. There were five or six states in the Union which
had no bill of rights, separately and distinctly as such; but they annexed
the substance of a bill of rights to their respective constitutions. These
states, he further observed, were as free as this state, and their liberties
as secure as ours. If so, gentlemen's arguments from the precedent were not
good. In Virginia, all powers were given to the government without any exception.
It was different in the general government, to which certain special powers
were delegated for certain purposes. He asked which was the more safe. Was
it safer to grant general powers than certain limited powers? This much as
to the theory, continued he. What is the practice of this invaluable government?
Have your citizens been bound by it? They have not, sir. You have violated
that maxim, "that no man shall be condemned without a fair trial." That man
who was killed, not secundum artem, was deprived of his life without
the benefit of law, and in express violation of this declaration of rights,
which they confide in so much. But, sir, this bill of rights was no security.
It is but a paper check. It has been violated in many other instances. Therefore,
from theory and practice, it may be concluded that this government, with
special powers, without any express exceptions, is better than a government
with general powers and special exceptions. But the practice of England is
against us. The rights there reserved to the people are to limit and check
the king's prerogative. It is easier to enumerate the exceptions to his prerogative,
than to mention all the cases to which it extends. Besides, these reservations,
being only formed in acts of the legislature, may be altered by the representatives
of the people when they think proper. No comparison can be made of this with
the other governments he mentioned. There is no stipulation between the king
and people. The former is possessed of absolute, unlimited authority.
But, sir, this Constitution
is defective because the common {451} law is not declared to be in force!
What would have been the consequence if it had? It would be immutable. But
now it can be changed or modified as the legislative body may find necessary
for the community. But the "common law" is "not excluded". There is "nothing" in that paper (APP note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion.
As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact.
The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman
says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes
and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture.
Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the
forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted. Congress have power
to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
offences against the laws of nations; but they cannot define or prescribe
the punishment of any other crime whatever, without violating the Constitution.
If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might
be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded.
A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the preëxisting claim to rights in the people. They belong to us as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution.
But it is said that, if it be doubtful, the possibility of dispute ought
to be precluded. Admitting it was proper for the Convention to have inserted
a bill of rights, it is not proper here to propose it as the condition of
our accession to the Union. Would you reject this government for its omission,
dissolve the Union, and bring miseries on yourselves and posterity? I hope
the gentleman does not oppose it on this ground solely. Is there another
reason? He said that it is not only the general wish of this state, but all
the states, to have a bill of rights. If it be so, where is the difficulty
of having this done by way of subsequent amendment? We shall find the other
states willing to accord with their own favorite wish. The gentleman last
up says that the power of legislation includes every thing. A general power
of legislation does. But this is a special power of legislation. Therefore,
it does not contain that plenitude of power which he imagines. They cannot
legislate in any case but those particularly enumerated. No gentleman, who
is a friend to the government, ought to withhold his assent from it for this
reason.
{452} Mr. GEORGE MASON
replied that the worthy gentleman was mistaken in his assertion that the
bill of rights did not prohibit torture; for that one clause expressly provided
that no man can give evidence against himself; and that the
worthy gentleman must know that, in those countries where torture is used,
evidence was extorted from the criminal himself. Another clause of the bill
of rights provided that no cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted;
therefore, torture was included in the prohibition.
Mr. NICHOLAS acknowledged
the bill of rights to contain that prohibition, and that the gentleman was
right with respect to the practice of extorting confession from the criminal
in those countries where torture is used; but still he saw no security arising
from the bill of rights as separate from the Constitution, for that it had been frequently violated with impunity.
[Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Next | Previous | Contents | Text Version | Home | Constitution Society
Return to the American Patriot Party Main Page
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
Virginia Resolution of 1798
Authors Thomas Jefferson and James Madison:
RESOLVED,
That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm
resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support "the government" of the United States in all measures "warranted" by "the former".
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.
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.
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.
That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States," and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition,
having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which
amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a
reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.
That the good people of this commonwealth,
having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for
their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and
perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution,
which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness;
the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the
other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.
That
the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions
to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that
the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy
be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this
state in the Congress of the United States.
Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798 |
|
|
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
Authors 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.
2.
Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to
Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current
coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas,
and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,"
(and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes,
other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.
3.
Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared
by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that "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:
that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the
right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may
be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses
which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed.
And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of
the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves
the
right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general
demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint
or interference.
And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another
and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the
Constitution, which expressly declares, that "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press": thereby guarding
in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion,
of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that
whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others,
arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false
religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.
That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the
14th day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled
An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which
does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are:
that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited
to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens.
And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the
Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress
of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force
5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved,
another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant
caution, has declared that "the migration or importation of such persons
as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not
be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808" that this commonwealth
does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the
said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration,
is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void
6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth,
on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of
the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled "An
Act concerning aliens" is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to
which has provided that "no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due
progress of law"; and that another having provided that "in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial
jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted
with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense;" the
same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of
the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion,
without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation
of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without
defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution,
is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring
the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws
from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken
by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution
which provides that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested
in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior"; and that the said act is void for that reason also.
And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to
that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive,
and a negative on all Legislative powers.
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.
Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed,
who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the
Legislatures of the several States: to
assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their
friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a
common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for
specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their
late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity
of all the States:
that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning
in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely
anxious for its preservation: that
it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government
and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard
to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact,
is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore
this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit
to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men
on earth: 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: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that
the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of
crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the
constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance
to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel,
judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence,
his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction:
that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these
States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion
of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all,
no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority
in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment,
the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors
of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to
reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people,
or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked
by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their
election, or other interests, public or personal;
that the friendless alien
has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but
the citizen will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has a sedition act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily
drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies
against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to
be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would
be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence
our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the
parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in
confidence; it
is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to
bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution
has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence
may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits,
Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men
of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice
has assented to, and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild
spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection:
that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the
President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification,
the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice.
In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man,
but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
That this commonwealth
does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments
on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes herein
before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized
by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced
as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general
or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will
be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their
own. That
they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so
palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration
that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General
Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of
all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights
of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government,
with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would
be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one
deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will
each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor
any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized
by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.
9th.
Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing
or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person
or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond
or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next
session of Assembly
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Freedom is more than simply a symbol such as a flag
of which meaning can be changed with a ``democratic" vote, modern interpretation
or a federal government or ``country" that preaches unity & peace. It
is in fact ``a law that guarantees an individuals inalienable rights"; Life,
to live where one wants to live and without harassment or condemnation from
others; Liberty to move about where one wants to move and live without
regard to licenses, permits or zone requirements; And the pursuit of happiness
that cannot be taken away by a so called ``democracy" or executive order
or other ``grand plans" of others. Freedom is an absolute guarantee of ``Certain"
`` Inalienable" `` Rights" . ``AMONG"... ``these" are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Further described ``Among these"
are the Bill of Rights which are inalienable, unchangeable God given natural
birth rights; of which the constitution would have never been ratified without
their inclusion.
|
copyright 2000 Richard Taylor |
|
|
|
|
Welcome to
Pacific Westcom. The Pacific West Coast's premiere US Pacific West Command
Web Center Station for US Pacific News, US pacific west weather, US pacific
west coast travel, US pacific west coast entertainment usarpac and world wide
access to the best international & US sites on the Web
Serving the US West Coast States of Alaska, Canada, Washington, Oregon,
California and Mexico. US West North to US West South, we have the information
you need! Just take a look at these sites at your finger tips!
Remember us: Pacific West com.com
US Pacific Westcom your One Stop US Pacific West Command Web Station for
US Pacific News! Take Command of your US fleet! Click here for frames . Cgsc
Afcea Amc Mtmc Usarpac Uspacom Medcom Forscom Usasoc; a PWN weather sponsored
link
Christian Science Monitor News, Your Major International News Central Command
Center:
The Links you want:
Editorial News Press Release, Local News, National News and International
Press Releases:
Freedom and Patriotic Sites, Declaration of Independence and Constitutional
Sites;
Pacific News, World News
CDF Patriots Directory
- If you do not see the above control header, Click Here first for This Site's
Control Frames and Intro to CDF the Civil Defense Force Command Center CDFCC.
CDF Patriots Independence
CDF Patriots Bill of Rights
CDF Patriots Constitution 1
CDF Patriots Constitution 2
CDF Patriots Founders
CDF Patriots Flag
CDF Patriots Governments
CDF Patriots Bureaucracies
CDF Patriots Military/Militia
CDF Patriots Police
CDF Patriots American
CDF Patriots Politics
CDF Patriots Freedom
CDF Patriots Laws
CDF FBI/CIA/Civilian
CDF Patriots Foreign Policy
CDF Patriots Education
CDF Patriots Facts
CDF Patriots Freedom Morality
CDF Patriots
Response Reply
CDF Patriots Member
CDF Patriots Demands
CDF Patriots Militia Be Prepared not Paranoid
CDF Patriots Militias
CDF Patriots Immigration
CDF Patriots Links
CDF Patriots Contact
CDF
No Names No Numbers Tax
The only True Freedom and True Patriot Tax - Do not confuse with any other.
This Tax System removes the heavy burden and bureaucracy associated
with TaxationÕs present Tax implementation and Tax collection.
Do not be fooled by scams such as the Fair Tax, Equal Tax, Free Tax, Patriot Tax and other so called new systems of Taxation.
The No Names No Numbers Tax:
Removes the IRS and places the States and Counties in Full Control.
Removes Most Federal Bureaucracies from the States
Removes Federal Tax Burdens within States out of the States;
Removes Tax Paperwork;
Removes Heavy Tax Crimes and Penalties,
Removes Invasive Government Snooping into your personal Business,
Removes Tax Compliance Costs.
The No Names No Numbers Tax is Part of the States Liberty Bill
True Republican Patriots, Patriots of the Oregon Patriot Party
New Automobiles, New Sports Cars, Race Cars, New 4x4 Four Wheel Drive
Trucks and Vehicles
Landship, Taylor Landship
- Simply Powerful.
A New Car, A New car Company, No one builds and automobile like Landship
Landship - Simply Powerful
Cartoons
Pro
Toonerz, Professional Cartoonist Cartoons and Comics for every occasion
Pro Toonerz, Professional Cartoonist
Cartoons and Comics for every occasion.
THE COMICS SECTION . COM Free
Daily Comics, Have a Cup of Laughter
Green
Springs the Series
Green Springs the Animated Series
Licensing Merchandise.Products Green Springs the Animated Series Cartoon Character Licensing
Richard
Taylor Cartoonist, Illustrator, Author Poet and Graphic Design
Richard Taylor, Poems
and Poetry
Logos Business
Logos
Cartoon Directories
Pro Toonerz
T2 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing and
Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T3 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing and
Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T4 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing and
Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T5 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing and
Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T6 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing and
Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T7 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing and
Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T8 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing and
Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T9 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing and
Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T10 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Pro
Toonerz 2 T11 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character
Licensing and Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T12 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T13 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T14 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T15 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T16 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T17 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T18 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T19 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Pro Toonerz
T20 Professional Cartoonist Cartoons, Comics, Cartoon Character Licensing
and Web sites Directory
Intellectual Political
Commentary with Peep and Cheep
Green Springs Productions Cartoon Character Licensing,
Green Springs Cartoon Character License and Green Springs Character License:
Green
Springs Character License 1 Dipo the Dinosaur.
Green
Springs Character License 2 Twiple the Bright Yellow Bird.
Green
Springs Character License 3 Jiblet the Jerbil (Gerbil)
Green
Springs Character License 4 Sqwalker the Ostrich.
Green
Springs Character License 5 San the Snail.
Green
Springs Character License 6 Woyb the Worm.
Green
Springs Character License 7 Snug the Slug.
Green
Springs Character License 8 Breadmaker Turtles, Wheat, Wholesome and White.
Green
Springs Character License 9 Nuts the Inventor.
Green
Springs Character License 10 Snick and Rittle, a snake and his rattle.
Green
Springs Character License 11 Tubs the Turtle.
Green
Springs Character License 12 Andy the Ant.
Green
Springs Character License 13 Bobby Bear.
Green
Springs Character License 14 Camelot Caterpillar and Curt the Chameleon in
Caterpillar Candy Cocktale.
Green
Springs Character License 15 Dee the Damselfly and Darnel the Dragonfly in
The Dragon and the Damsel.
Green
Springs Character License 16 Ebert E. Ermine in Eight EÕs.
Green
Springs Character License 17 Flamingos, Fish, Pheasants, Frogs, Ferrets, Fallow
Fawns and Frog Feet in February Fracas.
Green
Springs Character License 18 Gary Grouse and Glen Gladious Gator in The Gator
and the Grouse.
Green
Springs Character License 19 Herbert, Hemit and Hugo Hog in Hog Holiday Hoedown.
Green
Springs Character License 20 I the Fly and Imil in I the Fly.
Green
Springs Character License 21 Jim, Jethro, John, Jesse, Josh, Jeff, Jamie,
Joseph, Jake, Justin and Joey Johnson in Jerboa Juneberry, Jelly Berry Jam
Jamboree.
Green
Springs Character License 22 Katie the Kangaroo, Citchy the Cat and the Kangaroo
Rats in Kites and Kangaroos.
Green
Springs Character License 23 Lu Lu Llama and Lorilie Llama in Limes, Lemons
and Llamas.
Green
Springs Character License 24 Moose, Mastodons, Mammoths, Mammals and Marbles
in the Mysterious Marble Mountain.
Green
Springs Character License 25 Norman Newt and Newman Nuthatch in Nutmegs.
Green
Springs Character License 26 Obrian Opossum, Olga Opossum, Oranges, Orange
Blossoms and Otters in October Opossum.
Green
Springs Character License 27 Paul Porcupine, Pete Porcupine and Pauline Porcupine
with Petunias in Porcupines and Petunias.
Green
Springs Character License 28 Q Quetzal and Kay Quetzal in Q the Quetzal.
Green
Springs Character License 29 Ruben Russle the Rabbit in Red Ripe Rutabagas.
Green
Springs Character License 30 Samuel Sheldon Sapsucker, Sanford the Sardine
and Steve the Shark in Seemingly E - Sea.
Green
Springs Character License 31 Tookee Toucan, Teto the Tortoise, Tobias Timothy
Turtle and Tish the Tadpole in The Turtle and the Tortoise.
Green
Springs Character License 32 Unger the Umbrette and the Urchin in The Umbrette
and the Urchin.
Green
Springs Character License 33 Vivian Yvonne Vanessa the Vixen and Virgil the
Vole in Vivacious Vestige.
Green
Springs Character License 34 William Wilfurd Waxwing Wayne Witiwer Warbler
in The Wayward Waxwing and the Whimsical Warbler.
Green
Springs Character License 35 Yellow Bellied Bunting and Yellow Caterpillars
in The Yarn of the Yellow Bellied Bunting.
Green
Springs Character License 36 Zena the Zebra, Xylophones, the Xiphoid Xerus
and Zithers in Zebra from Zambezi.
Green
Springs Character License 37 Knobze and Snobze the Detectives.
Editorial Political
Cartoons
NASA Kids The Non Aligned Space
Association; Kids Cartoons and Cartoon Character Licensing. NASA Space Center
Mission Control Flight Path Command License and Universe Licensing Merchandise
Space Educational Control Free Space
NASA Kids License; The
Non Aligned Space Association Kids Cartoons and Cartoon Character Licensing.
NASA Space Center Mission Control Flight Path Command License and Universe
Licensing Merchandise, Control Free Space
NASA Kids Products;
The Non Aligned Space Association Kids Cartoons and Cartoon Character Licensing.
NASA Space Center Mission Control Flight Path Command Product License and
Universe Licensing Merchandise Price Free Control Free Space
NASA Kids Games; The Non
Aligned Space Association Kids Cartoons and Cartoon Character Licensing.
NASA Space Center Mission Control and Flight Path Command Products, Licenses
and Universal Licensing Merchandise Price Kids Games, Control Free Space
American Patriot Party
Oregon Patriot
Party, Educating True Freedom, America at its best
American Patriot Party National and
States Web Forum for the True American Patriot Party
Facts and
Perspectives, what everyone should know about life and this world
Books
Final Voyage
of the Central America, by Normand E. Klare, Non fiction historical adventure
from actual accounts of the tragedy at sea, Sunken Gold and Treasure Ships
SS Central America,
by Normand E. Klare, Non fiction historical adventure from actual accounts
of the tragedy at sea, Sunken Gold and Treasure Ships
Herndon and Gibbon, First
North American Explorers of the Amazon, by Normand E. Klare, Non fiction historical
adventure from actual accounts
Klare Taylor Publishers, First
North American Explorers of the Amazon, Final Voyage of the Central America, by Normand E. Klare, Non fiction historical
adventure from actual accounts
The Ships of Children,
Children's and Teen's High Seas Adventure for the Adventurous Sea Scout seeking
wind, sail, ships and sea, a ocean going seafarers adventure of sea battles,
pirates, gold treasure, savages and fun adventure; enjoyable for the whole
family
Fine Quality
Books and Audio, Final Voyage of the Central America, Herndon and Gibbon,
First North American Explorers of the Amazon, Ships of Children, American
Patriot Party, Bible of American Freedom and Patriotism, Fact and Perspective,
No Names No Numbers True Patriot Tax, 27 Tongue Tailored Toon Twisters ChildrenÕs
gifts games and more
West Coast to Coast Business and Web Directory
Pacific Westcom
West Coast Directory, The Best of the West Coast to Coast
Private Property Rights
Jenny
Creek Private Lands Coalition
Jackson County Oregon
Business Directory
Pacific Westcom Medford Oregon
Directory, Medford, Oregon Business
Pacific Westcom West Coast
World Link Directory, The Best World Links, World Cams and World News
Bluegrass Music, Mountain Music
Greensprings,
Green Springs Blue Grass and Cascade Mountain Music Blue Grass Band
Free Radio
Live 555
Free Radio, The Best of Every Musical Era, All Fast, All Fun, All Family Music,
Your Alive with Live 555
KZAP, Educational and Funny,
Real News, Real Radio
Aquaculture and Aquaculture, Hatchery and Processing Facilities
Green Springs
Aquaculture, Fine Quality Rainbow Trout, Aquaculture wholesale, Retail, Fresh
Dressed Trout, Pond Stocking, Hatchery Fingerling through Trophy
Home Schooling Books
Jensen's Grammar Wordsmiths
Home School Grammar Books, Education in Grammar at itÍs Best
Journey Through Grammar
Land, Grammar Land Home School Grammar Books
Photography
William
Miller Photography, Professional Photography, Portrait, Political, Commercial,
Scenic and Sports; An Eye for Excellence, A Skill for Perfection
Holiday Gifts, Christmas, Fathers Day, Birthday Presents, Special Occasions
Bear Bun
Back Scratchers, Black Bear, Brown Bear, Blue Bear, Big Bear or Baby Bear;
If You aint got Bear Bun, you aint got Buns!
Klamath Falls Adjudication and Water Right News
Klamath Falls
Adjudication
Jenny Creek Private
lands Coalition, Private Property News Update
Commercial Properties: Santa Barbara, California Commercial Real Estate
Property, Commercial Lots, Commercial Land, Commercial acreage, Commercial
Rentals, Commercial Properties.
Santa Barbara
Commercial Property Commercial Lots and Commercial Real Estate Land and Acreage
Los Alamos, California Commercial Real Estate Property, Commercial Lots,
Commercial Land, Commercial acreage, Commercial Rentals, Commercial Properties.
Los Alamos Commercial
Property Commercial Lots and Commercial Real Estate Land and Acreage
Santa Maria, California Commercial Real Estate Property, Commercial Lots,
Commercial Land, Commercial acreage, Commercial Rentals, Commercial Properties.
Santa Maria Commercial
Property Commercial Lots and Commercial Real Estate Land and Acreage
San Francisco, California Commercial Real Estate Property, Commercial Lots,
Commercial Land, Commercial acreage, Commercial Rentals, Commercial Properties.
San Francisco
Commercial Property Commercial Lots and Commercial Real Estate Land and Acreage
Los Angles, California Commercial Real Estate Property, Commercial Lots,
Commercial Land, Commercial acreage, Commercial Rentals, Commercial Properties.
Los Angles Commercial
Property Commercial Lots and Commercial Real Estate Land and Acreage
Santa Ynez, California Commercial Real Estate Property, Commercial Lots,
Commercial Land, Commercial acreage, Commercial Rentals, Commercial Properties.
Santa Ynez Commercial
Property Commercial Lots and Commercial Real Estate Land and Acreage
Los Olivos, , California Commercial Real Estate Property, Commercial Lots,
Commercial Land, Commercial acreage, Commercial Rentals, Commercial Properties.
Los Olivos Commercial
Property Commercial Lots and Commercial Real Estate Land and Acreage Science
and Interesting fun Links:
IMA Interstellar
Militant Antagonizers
UFO Unidentified Flying Objects, Locators, Clean No Hassle Space ship
and Planet Strafing, Spirit, Spirits. Paranormal, Ghost Busters, Ghost Killers
Stalking and Exterminators for Free Quick Quality Ecto. Exterminations, Spook
Killing and Confinement. IMA your Spiritual and Celestial beings Contact,
Negotiation and, where necessary, Elimination and Confinement Specialists,
when you have invisible and unseen problems arrise, Do not be Spooked, call
IMA
Seeking God
SPRI, Spiritual Physics Recognition
Institute, Private Science at Home Experimentation and Research Forum
Freedom
Cgsc Afcea Amc Mtmc Usarpac Uspacom Medcom Forscom Usasoc USA US, US Army
IMA, Barracks, Docks, US Navy, US Air Force, US Marines, Green Barrett, Special
Forces, Navy Seals, WW I - World War 1 one, WW II World War 2 two, Command,
Base Center; Oregon, California, Fire Department, LA Fire, Santa Anna, US
Forestry, Oregon State, College; A PWN weather sponsored link county, city
and state.
Zoning and other Regulations that obstruct truly free enterprise but for
those who can purchase or manipulate them are a bane to true liberty and above
all other factors in this country create unemployment.
Zoning does not control growth, Zoning and regulations control people; and
forces free enterprise into the open arms of a government bureaucracy where
growth is untethered; Increasing social bureaucratic dependency and increasing
the burden on free enterprise and a free people. |
|
|
True American Freedom begins with education of the Declaration of Independence
and the 40 Grievances that define 40 definitions to recognize tyranny in government.
Have you read them?
Read the Declaration of Independence now at the Oregon Patriot Party http://www.oregonpatriotparty.com
Educating civilians, military, militia and the world about true American
freedom defined by the founding fathers of this country.
Oregon Patriot Party of the American Patriot Party and CDF, educating true freedom and justice, one Patriot at a time.
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.
~~"
American Patriot Party National Headquarters
True American Patriots, True American Patriotism. The Democratic Republic
of Jefferson - Inalienable Rights, States Rights, Local Control |
|
|