Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, Jenny Creek PLC Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, Jenny Creek Private Lands Coalition, Federal Government BLM, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior Cascade Siskiyou Mountain Range, Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, Oregon BLM Environment, US Bureaucracy, Range land, Cattle and Water Rights, Klamath Falls Adjudication, Oregon State

Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, Cascade Siskiyou National Monument

Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. Cascade National Monument News and Commentary:

Official Jenny Creek Private Lands Coalition Web Site, Defending Private Property. Private property protection links Cascade Siskiyou National Monument and other Freedom Web Sites.

Signatures of people most affected
Who are against the Cascade Siskiyou National monument.

<<< Also view links at left to see how corrupt practices by BLM have distorted the perception of the monument which needs no protection. See how environmental socialism throws out public opinion of those most affected to create false need for their groups, so to collect money from government and tax payers alike.

John Locke: 220: "

...........To tell people they may provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative, when,

by oppression,

artifice,

or being "delivered over" to a "foreign power",

their old one "is" "gone", is only to tell them they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure.

This is, in effect, no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty, and, when their chains are "on", tell them they may "act" like free men.

This, if barely so, is rather mockery than relief,

and men can never be secure from tyranny >>>if there be no means to escape<<< it till they are perfectly under it;

and, therefore, it is that they have "not only" a "right" to get "out of it", >>>but to prevent it<<<.

Here it is clear that freedom is no act.

Freedom is an actual condition and possession of powers, of defined rights granted of the Law of Nature and the Law of God.

Freedom is of natural law - God's Laws and the law of nature, and adherence of those laws by the legislative that was created in the original compact to protect those rights and laws.

When the legislative abandons the "delegated" powers it was "originally" created for, so to protect the natural rights of those who created it to that end, and changes or sets designs against that end, it looses all authority, that government and all legislatures derived from it that continue with that abandonment cease; as do the authority and powers they once possessed.

Should they, any one, any number or all, attempt to become a measure of force to retain such powers, they place themselves at war with the people and are they themselves rebels, not the people who act to remove them.

John Locke establishes that when the legislative is either changed from the original purpose it was created, its powers cease; or when it transfers itself and its citizens into to hands of a foreign legislature it's power ceases.

When the Federal Government places the states under United Nations control, or under International Environmental mandates, it has relinquished its powers, first by acting without authority as it is a power not delegated to it and secondly by transferring the legislative powers of the states into the jurisdiction of a foreign power;

This also occurs when the States themselves transfer its legislative powers that are not delegated to them nor the federal government, into the hands of the federal government or into the hands of any other power.

John Locke 232. Whosoever uses force without right -- as every one does in society who does it without law -- puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are canceled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

John Locke 222. The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their "property"; and the end while they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the society, to limit the "power" and moderate the "dominion" of every part and member of the society.

For since it can >>>"never" be supposed to be the "will" of the "society"<<< that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs "to secure" by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making: "whenever" the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the "property" of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a "state of war with the people",

who are thereupon absolved from "any farther obedience", and are left to the common refuge which "God hath provided" for "all men against force and violence".

Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall "transgress" this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or "put into the hands" of "any other", an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this "breach of trust" they >>>"forfeit"<<< the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to "the people", who have a "right" to resume their "original liberty", and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, which is the "end" for which they are "in" "society." (i.e. protection of their property)

John Locke 227. In both the forementioned cases, when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators "act" "contrary to the end" for "which they were constituted", "those who are" guilty "are guilty" of rebellion.

For if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away "the umpirage" which every one had consented to for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them.

They "who remove" "or change" the legislative take away this decisive power, which nobody can have but by the appointment and consent of the people, and so destroying the authority which the people did, and nobody else can, set up, and introducing a power which the people hath not authorized, "actually introduce a state of war", which is that of "force without authority"; and thus by removing the legislative established by the society, in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their own will, they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the state of war. And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the legislators themselves, as has been shown, can be "no less esteemed so", when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their "liberties" and "properties" shall by "force invade and endeavor" to "take them away";

and so they putting themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels.

John Locke 228. But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when "illegal" "attempts" are made upon their liberties "or" properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, contrary to the trust put in them, and that, therefore, "this doctrine" is "not to be allowed", being 'so destructive to the "peace" of the world';

>>>they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates<<<, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases,

>>> it is "not" to be charged upon "him who defends his own right", but "on him" that "invades his neighbour's"."

If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for "peace sake" to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what kind of a peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine, and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors.

Who would not think it an admirable "peace" betwixt the mighty and the mean, when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf? ....

(For more on John Locke and the Founders intent, See The American Patriot Party Web Site Index).
--------

Click Here for UPDATE! or go directly to BLM EXPANDS MONUMENT!

Local BLM Manager takes more private land along Jenny Creek with a stroke of his own pen!

Cascade Siskiyou National Monument wording condemns private property, owners may only sell to Federal Government at their price! Actual letters shown! Presidential Proclamation condemnation by Clinton simply allowing BLM local employees to write their own laws; Bush does nothing while smoking Clinton's cigar; appearing to enjoy it.

News Updates on BLM, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Federal Government and the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument.

News Update: Klamath Water Rights Adjudication Oregon State Klamath Falls Update: Ranches robbed of water and land value by attorneys and procedures, crooked corporations and blind or bought Hearing Panel Judges... Corporations attempt takeovers with old water claims... Federal Government attacks vested water rights in the adjudication process; State of Oregon Water Resources incorrectly "interprets" the laws that were made to protect vested water rights by attempting to incorrectly present fees as a stumbling block for valid vested rights and ignore weather related issues.

News Update: Federal Government Department of the Interior pulls National Archive web site to keep ranchers from easily accessing homestead records during the Klamath Falls, Oregon, Klamath Water Adjudication. Their excuses are unfounded and there is no other reason but willful manipulation.

The web site was working without flaw. Then taken off line for well over 9 months during crucial period during adjudication process.

Subjects Covered: Federal Government, US, BLM, Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, Presidential Proclamation, environmental special interest groups, environmental studies BLM Range Management, Bureau of Land Management Department of the Interior, streams, pastures, grazing permits, Federal regulations, State regulations, private land, irrigation, water right law, legal defense, Oregon law, federal law, Federal Bureaucracy, Federal Law, grazing lease land buy out, Government cattle lease land buy outs, water right issues, ODFW Oregon Fish and Game, Klamath Falls Adjudication, Federal Energy Commission FERC Re licensing news, Klamath Project.

Cascade Siskiyou National Monument:

The Jenny Creek Private Land Coalition News and the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument Update.

Click here for frames if the header or controls at left are not visible.

The Jenny Creek Private Land Coalition is devoted to protecting private property in the Cascade Siskiyou Monument and educating citizen's to the importance of private property ownership in a free country; and to the dangers of a socialist bureaucracy which we now possess.

Get Educated! We advise all Americans to become educated in the Declaration of Independence and understand what the 40 Grievances mean that are written there.

Review the American Patriot Party for links to the Constitutional Debates that define the intents of Founding Fathers of this country.

These Grievances describe tyranny in government (and what freedom is not). This is what we fight against. The opposite of these grievances is what freedom is.

These issues important then, are as valid and pertaining and relevant to the issues of today. The lesson bears a warning that nothing ever changes, and that socialism, of which there are many kinds, is progressive.

Such socialisms are that which always needs to be kept in check, resisted and removed.

News Update: Environmental tactics attempt to push reasoning that BLM Management will cost less without cattle on ranges and within the cascade Siskiyou Monument, then proposes expensive annual "Management";

Attempts to sell the idea of cutting water to "marginal" ranches in Klamath Falls.

Such good little socialists these are.... as if the government had been delegated any power take private property which it's legislative existence is solely meant to protect.

However both ideas are incorrect, as bureaucracy creates more bureaucracy which promises greater expense and more avenues for dependence upon government and financial burdens on the backs of private industry to support..

The only way to reduce federal costs is to remove the federal government hold on land from the states and remove the federal government from managing state land.

Along with this, remove all federal regulations from these lands to allow free industry to grow.

By giving the lands to the states and their respective counties for local control, as was first intended, the management will be up to local communities as they see fit, and employees paid reasonable salaries by vote.

This will stop the Federal Government and Environmental Special Interests from using the IRS as a path to pay their salaries.

The federal waste will stop, because the federal government simply will not be there.

Learn More!

Cascade Siskiyou Monument News Directory Report on the: US United States Government, BLM, US Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, US Federal Government and the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. National Environmental News and Events. Klamath Falls Adjudication, Klamath Project and FERC Federal Energy Commission on the California Oregon boarder. Water, power, fish passage, Indian, ranchers, farmers and irrigation district disputes news and information. USA boarder water law and policies. Laws on water rights and grazing rights. Lease land grazing leases, Federal Oregon and California environmental law disputes on monument's policy in the west. Politics of Private Land Rights, Federal Land Rights, Federal Water Rights and Private Water Rights.

Jenny Creek Private Lands Coalition

Jenny Creek Private Land Coalition represents 99% of all those people living on and around Jenny Creek.

(if controls above and at left are not visible, Click Here to get control frame)

This is no small matter. This is our community, we live here every day. I myself have lived on Jenny Creek for over 33 years.

We believe we have the right to do what we feel is best for our community and defend against outside interest and people who have no other interest but to use or utilize our surrounding land for their job security or as a political and special interest pawn.

We are now forced to protect our community again from encroaching bureaucrats who are using undelegated power of the Constitution in the form of an executive order to create a "land reserve" that can only be viewed as being implemented for political gain, bureaucratic job increase and position advancement.

The land that the Department of the Interior is pushing for control is the area known as the Soda Mountain area and also known and described as the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, or Cascade Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area ( CSEEA ) - Draft Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement.

The area is located in Southern Oregon on the Cascade mountain range. This area in fact having no need for such special protection. So little such need and so invisible, as it takes environmental scientists microscopic tests to attempt to rationalize it. The idea stemming from combined efforts from local environmentalist groups and the local Bureau of Land Management.

We have said NO. But the federal government will not listen;

They are therefor in direct violation of their duties to the community to defend the rights and properties of the people and are not serving the people, but controlling the people. They invoke their will, not ours. They intend to remove grazing; and in their plan "D", "acquire" (take) rights to land that people do not wish to sell or move from. They thus plan to disrupt the lives of many families; or Harass them until they quit can find a way to discontinue the leases.

It is these aggressions upon a local community who have made public the BLM's continued aggressive self edifying goals upon them. Fully all our pleas have been ignored by our representatives in the past. It is BLM's continued pressure that reveals those ever so steady attempts to surround and take value from the ranch land and eventually land from private ownership of the people.

Land or Rights taken in this way can never be lost, whether compensated or not.

John Locke: 186. "The conqueror, it is true, usually by the force he has over them, compels them, with a sword at their breasts, to stoop to his conditions, and submit to such a government as he pleases to afford them; but the inquiry is, what right he has to do so? If it be said they submit by their own consent, then this allows their own consent to be necessary to give the conqueror a title to rule over them. It remains only to be considered whether promises, extorted by force, >>>"without right"<<<, can be "thought consent", and how far they "bind".

To which I shall say, >>>"they bind not at all"<<<; because >>>"whatsoever"<<< >>>"another"<<< >>>>>>>>gets from me "by force"<<<<<<<<,

I still "retain the right of", and he is obliged presently to restore. He that forces my horse from me ought presently to restore him, and I have still a "right to retake him".

By the same reason, he that forced a promise from me ought presently to restore it -- i.e., quit me of the obligation of it; or I may resume it myself -- i.e., choose whether I will perform it.

For the law of Nature laying an obligation on me, only by the rules she prescribes, "cannot oblige me" by the violation of her rules; such is the "extorting" >>>"anything" from me "by force"<<<.

Nor does it "at all" alter the case, to say I gave my promise, no more than it excuses the force, and passes the right, when I put my hand in my pocket and deliver my purse myself to a thief who demands it with a pistol at my breast."

Rights of the Colonists:

"Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person >>>"or by his Representative.--"<<<"

"These are some of the first principles of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all >>>free<<< states,"

cascade Siskiyou National Monument.

The Environmentalist movement is socialism.

Those who promote it, are socialists.

Freedom, being an American, and being a true patriot of freedom is more than living in a geological location.

Ask the British, they thought so, and were thrown out.

Don't preach freedom, then practice socialism.

Samuel Adams
American Patriot & Politician,

Who wrote The Rights of the Colonists
1722 - 1803

(A document which summarizes John Locke's Civil Government)

"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

What have you done to learn what it is to truly be free.

See the American Patriot Party and

American Patriot Party of Oregon

JCPLC intends to press the State officials to take back all ranch land the federal government acquired and prevent the federal government from acquiring other private lands.

Further to remove all lands from federal ownership and place the land under ownership and control of the Each Local Respective County were the lands are encompassed so to remove all meddling with local communities from distant state and federal legislatures and remove the tax burden that federal management places on American Citizens. See Bill being drafted.

For it is clearly the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) only purpose, to expand the federal bureaucracy through acquisitions and "make work" projects that have no end goals but endless annual "Maintenance" and "Studies".

We will to do this by educating people and our representatives to the facts; revealing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for who they are, what they do (and don't do) and how they operate.

Please forward this link this site to everyone you know and all your representatives. Please place our Jenny Creek Private Lands Coalition web site link: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/jennycreek and also The Oregon Patriot Party web site link: http://www.oregonpatriotparty.com

We believe that all federal lands within all states should be turned over to those respective individual states, counties and at the same time removing all federal control, influence and tax burden on these lands completely. See Bill being drafted.

Please review our site, we feel you will find eye opening. Please revisit to find updated material.

For the latest news CLICK HERE. For Monument area map CLICK HERE see also CSEEA Draft Map that shows private property within the boundaries which BLM purposely omitted in the monument map.

The Federal Government uses the same tactics we removed in the Revolutionary war and have returned this type of control in greater force - Think not?

Lets read the Declaration of Independence.

3rd Grievance of the Declaration of Independence (defining Tyranny in government) : "He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature; a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."

(Zoning and "Conditional use" permits which people must sign before building, and administrative laws, judges and courts the uphold such relinquishments where they should not - for inalienable rights are not relinquishable)

4th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence (defining Tyranny in government) : "He 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";

(The BLM has courts in the state of "Virginia" that decide on administrative laws and to rule, they all but ignore pleas from individuals and if their strict legal "procedure' is not adhered to, your pleas are worthless - absolutely worthless. If the world wildlife and other international organizations such as UN sanctions send in more letters than your little community, the BLM steps on the will of your community, saying that it is in the greater public interest of others who live nowhere near your area)

5th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence (defining Tyranny in government) : "He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people."

(BLM has their own administrative judges laws and rules for their "Departments";

The Federal government nor "These Departments" however cannot exceed or arrogate any new power but are explicitly limited to the delegated powers ".

This is clearly defined in the Constitutional debates:

Constitutional Debate:

MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]

Mr. (George) MASON: then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive power, as far as respected the "police" and good government of "the place"; but he would give them "no more", because he thought it unnecessary. He was very willing to give them, in this as well as in all other cases, those powers which he thought indispensably necessary.

Mr. (James) MADISON: Mr. Chairman: "I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary to say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me ask whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers. I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "small district", which "cannot exceed" "ten miles square",

and may "not be more than one mile", will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man,

I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant "exclusive advantages", in a very >>>"circumscribed district"<<<, to the prejudice of the community at large." ....

"I believe the States General have no jurisdiction over the Hague; but I have heard that mentioned as a circumstance which gave undue influence to Holland over the rest. We must limit our apprehensions to certain degrees of probability. The evils which they urge must result from this clause are extremely improbable; nay, "almost" impossible."

Mr. GRAYSON: Mr. Chairman, one answer which has been given is, the improbability of the evil that it will never be attempted, and that it is almost impossible. This will not satisfy us, when we consider the great attachments men have to a great and "magnificent capital" (APP: Speaking of Washington DC and a national government). It would be the interest of the citizens of that district to aggrandize themselves by every possible means in their power, to the great injury of the other states. (APP: Quite a revelation) If we travel all over the world, we shall find that people have aggrandized their own capitals. Look at Russia and Prussia. Every step has been taken to aggrandize their capitals.

In what light are we to consider the ten miles square?..."

".....It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government;"

"but they "never" had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases. The power of regulating the police and good government of it will secure Congress against insults. What originated the idea of the exclusive legislation was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, it is supposed, they left the state." (APP Note: This describes where the purpose of police powers was derived, a very limited purpose)

".....It is answered that the consent of the state "must" be required, or else they cannot have such a district, or places for the erecting of forts,

But how much is already >>> "given" "them"!<<< (APP Note: The States gave "them") Look at the great country to the north-west of the Ohio, extending to and commanding the lakes."

Look at the other end of the Ohio, towards South Carolina, extending to the Mississippi. See what these, in process of time, may amount to. They may grant "exclusive privileges" to any particular part of which they have the "possession". (APP Note: Non delegated federal laws, enforcement and powers within the boarders of independent states, federal pay, federal union jobs, federal monuments, non profits, prevailing wages and benefits)

But it may be observed that those extensive countries will be formed into independent states, and that their consent will be "necessary".

To this I answer, that they may still grant such privileges as, in that country, are already granted to Congress by the states. The grants of Virginia, South Carolina, and other states, will be subservient to Congress in this respect. Of course, it results from the whole, that requiring the consent of the states will be no guard against this abuse of power."

Mr. HENRY entertained strong suspicions that great dangers must result from the clause under consideration. They were not removed, but rather confirmed, by the remarks of the honorable gentleman, in saying that it was extremely improbable that the members from New Hampshire and Georgia would go and legislate exclusively for the ten miles square.

If it was so improbable, why ask the power? Why demand a power which was "not to be exercised"? Compare this power, says he, with the next clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary to carry their laws into execution. By this they have a right to pass any law that may facilitate the execution of their acts. They have a right, by this clause, to make a law that such a district shall be set apart for any purpose they please, and that any man who shall act contrary to their commands, within certain ten miles square, or any place they may select, and strongholds, shall be hanged without benefit of clergy. If they think any law necessary for their personal safety, after perpetrating the most tyrannical and oppressive deeds, cannot they make it by this sweeping clause? If it be necessary to provide, not only for this, but for any department or officer of Congress, does not this clause enable them to make a law for the purpose? And will not these laws, made for those purposes, be paramount to the laws of the states? Will not this clause give them a right to keep a powerful army continually on foot, if they think it necessary to aid the execution of their laws?

Is there any act, however atrocious, which they cannot do by virtue of this clause? Look at the use which has been made, in all parts of the world, of that human thing called power. Look at the predominant thirst of dominion which has invariably and uniformly prompted rulers to abuse their powers.

Can you say that you will be safe when you give such unlimited powers, {437} without any real responsibility? Will you be safe when you trust men at Philadelphia with power to make any law that will enable them to carry their acts into execution? Will not the members of Congress have the same passions which other rulers have had?

They will not be superior to the frailties of human nature. However cautious you may be in the selection of your representatives, it will be dangerous to trust them with such unbounded powers. Shall we be told, when about to grant such illimitable authority, that it will never be exercised!

I conjure you once more to remember the admonition of that sage man who told you that, when you give power, you know not what you give. I know the absolute necessity of an energetic government.

But is it consistent with any principle of prudence or good policy to grant unlimited, unbounded authority, which is so totally unnecessary that gentlemen say it will never be exercised? But gentlemen say that we must make experiments.

A wonderful and unheard-of experiment it will be, to give "unlimited power unnecessarily!" I admit my inferiority in point of historical knowledge; but I believe no man can produce an instance of an unnecessary and unlimited power, given to a body independent of the legislature, within a particular district. Let any man in this Convention show me an instance of such separate and different powers of legislation in the same country show me an instance where a part of the community was independent of the whole.

The people within that place, and the strongholds, may be excused from all the burdens imposed on the rest of the society, and may enjoy exclusive emoluments, to the great injury of the rest of the people.

But gentlemen say that the power will not he abused. They ought to show that it is necessary. All their powers may be fully carried into execution, without this exclusive authority in the ten miles square.

The sweeping clause will fully enable them to do what they please. What could the most extravagant and boundless imagination ask, but power to do every thing?

I have reason to suspect ambitious grasps at power. The experience of the world teaches me the jeopardy of giving enormous power. Strike this clause out of the form of the government, and how will it stand? Congress will still have power, by the sweeping clause, to make laws within that {438} place and the strongholds, independently of the local authority of the state. I ask you, if this clause be struck out, whether the sweeping clause will not enable them to protect themselves from insult. If you grant them these powers, you destroy every degree of responsibility. They will fully screen them from justice, and preclude the possibility of punishing them. No instance can be given of such a wanton grasp of power as an exclusive legislation in all cases whatever.

MR. JAMES MADISON: "....The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. >>> "If that latitude of construction"<<< which he contends for were to take place with respect to the sweeping clause, there would be room for those horrors.

But it gives "no" supplementary power.

It only enables them to execute the "delegated" powers.

If the "delegation" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause.

It is at most "but" explanatory.

For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves "authority" to make laws to execute it. Were it possible to delineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances in which legislation by the general legislature would be necessary, and leave to the states all the other powers, I imagine no gentleman would object to it. But this is not within the limits of human capacity.

The particular powers which are found necessary to be given {439} are therefore delegated "generally", and particular and minute specification is left to the legislature...

.."When the honorable member objects to giving the general government jurisdiction over the "place" of their session, does he mean that it should be under the control of any particular state, that might, at a critical moment, seize it? I should have thought that this clause would have met with the most cordial approbation.

As the "consent" of the state in which it may be must be obtained, and as it may stipulate the terms of the grant, should they violate the particular stipulations it would be an usurpation; so that, >>>"if"<<< the members of Congress were to be guided by the "laws" of their country, none of those dangers could arise.

Mr. HENRY replied that, if Congress were vested with supreme power of legislation, paramount to the constitution and laws of the states, the dangers he had described might happen; for that Congress would not be confined to the "enumerated" powers.

This construction was warranted, in his opinion, >>>>by the addition of the word<<<<

>>>> "department"<<<<,

at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of any department or officer of the government. (APP Note: A very Important Warning)

Mr. PENDLETON: Mr. Chairman, this clause does >>>"not"<<< give Congress power to impede the operation of >>>any part<<< of the Constitution, or to make >>>any regulation<<< that may

>>> affect the interests of the citizens<<< of the >>>Union at large.<<<

But it gives them power over the "local" "police" of the "place", so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the fair construction of the clause.

It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within that district. What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the >>> general powers of the federal legislature,<<< or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state "where it shall be". What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there,

in order to preserve {440} serve the police of the place and their own personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the fair construction. Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters. (APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, >>>I understand that clause as not going a single step beyond the delegated powers.<<<

What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "delegated" powers,

but can >>> by "no means" depart from them,<<<

>>>>or arrogate "any new" powers;<<< for the plain language of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the

">>>"delegated"<<< powers"."


	Counter by Rapid Axcess

Constitutional Debates,

MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]

Continued.

As clearly presented by Mr. Pendleton within the Constitutional Debates, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants "Presidential Proclamations" nor anything that would effect the "citizens of the Union at large".

This is because providing for the "General Welfare" has to do with "military defense" against foreign agression of the nation and not to be used for meddling in state business or creating unto itself new powers.

This was clearly defined by the Founders.

George Mason in the same debate summarizes these dangers of the federal government perverting "general phrases" as the "General Welfare":

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".

As presented by the founders, the federal congress or President cannot act outside its delegated powers.

A Presidential Proclamation is an undeligated power of the Original Compact

Being an undelegated power is therefor VOID and of NO POWER.

The EXACT DANGER that George Mason warned of occurred only years after the Constitution was ratified when the Alien and Sedition Acts in John Adams administration threatened the country sending the two prominent Authors of both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to correct the federal government who attempted to corrupt the plain sense meaning and very Limited delegated powers of the Constitution.

This is clearly defined by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions

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" <<<;

(APP Note: Presidential Proclamations - "go beyond this" by placing the executive above all legislative and judicial, and subverts the general principles of free government)

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."

The reasonings are clearly expounded in the Declaration of Independence years before in defining Tyranny in government.

7th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence, (defining Tyranny in government) : "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."<<<

(Monuments, land condemnation, regulations that surround, control and remove private property and rights all are undelegated and not the intended purpose of government)

13th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence (defining Tyranny in government) : "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation"

(UN and wildlife Organizations and administrative laws, procedures, judges and courts)

17th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence (defining Tyranny in government) : "For imposing taxes on us without our consent";

(self explanatory - the 16th amendment found unconstitutional by the supreme court was manipulated by making it a part of the constitution through an amendment - thereby corrupting the constitution itself.)

20th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence (defining Tyranny in government) : For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

(Presidential powers which where only created for, and as, a war powers act to protect us from enemies, have now begun to be used to attack the citizens of the United States, as presented in the debates that providing for the general welfare was "not to be used to enact laws over the Union at Large")

22nd Grievance of the Declaration of Independence (defining Tyranny in government) : For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to "legislate for us in all cases whatsoever".

(Presidential powers which where only created for, and as, a war powers act to protect us from enemies, have now begun to be used to attack the citizens of the United States, as presented in the debates that providing for the general welfare was "not to be used to enact laws over the Union at Large")

The 10th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence (defining Tyranny in government) :

"He has erected a multitude of new offices and

sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance".

The Federal government is guilty of all these.

The only answer:

Complete Removal of federal ownership and control of lands within the states.

Only this will remove the endless taxation and regulations - See Bill being Drafted.

Here are some of our local members and supporters: (see list being compiled and updated)

For the fight against Federal Socialism, join the American Patriot Party

Local.

Richard Taylor
Robert Taylor
Jerry Barry
Tracie Gibson
Tom Gibson
Vernon Hopkins
Patrice Ward
Joe Laubacher
Phill Laubacher
Mark Randall
Danil Thomas
Julie Thomas
H.J. Burrow
Edith Burrow
Donald Rowlett
Alan Troutman
Judith Troutman
Dale Odom
Stephani Odom
Bud Odom
Charles Witter
Jamie Peters
Bonnie Minntoli
Rebel Minntoli
William Miller
Christine Miller
Mike Cox
Anita Riordan
Nancy Gallagher
Kathleen Watt
Harold Watt
Carrol Watt
Bobby Miller

E-mail us

Representative e-mails, faxes and contacts

BLM, Bureau of Land Management Department of the Interior, Federal Government and the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument News:

Click Here for UPDATE! or go directly to BLM EXPANDS MONUMENT!

Local BLM Manager takes more private land along Jenny Creek with a stroke of his own pen!

Cascade Siskiyou National Monument wording condemns private property...owners may only sell to Federal Government at their price! Actual letters shown! Presidential Proclamation condemnation by Clinton simply allowing BLM local employees to write their own laws; Bush does nothing while smoking Clinton's cigar; appearing to enjoy it.

News Updates on BLM, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Federal Government and the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument.

News Update: Klamath Water Rights Adjudication Oregon State Klamath Falls Update: Ranches robbed of water and land value by attorneys and procedures, crooked corporations and blind or bought Hearing Panel Judges... Corporations attempt takeovers with old water claims... Federal Government attacks vested water rights in the adjudication process; State of Oregon Water Resources incorrectly "interprets" the laws that were made to protect vested water rights by attempting to incorrectly present fees as a stumbling block for valid vested rights and ignore weather related issues.

News Update: Federal Government Department of the Interior pulls National Archive web site to keep ranchers from easily accessing homestead records during the Klamath Falls, Oregon, Klamath Water Adjudication. Their excuses are unfounded and there is no other reason but willful manipulation. The web site was working without flaw. Well over 9 months with no access; Finally available after removing itself during the Klamath Falls Adjudication process!

Cascade Siskiyou National Monument News, Official Jenny Creek Private Lands Coalition Web Site, Defending Private Property, Private Property protection links and other Freedom Web Sites. Subjects: Federal Government, US, BLM, Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. BLM Range Management, Bureau of Land Management Department of the Interior, streams, pastures, private land, irrigation, water rights, legal defense, Oregon law, USA federal law License.

Member American Patriot Party of Oregon an Independent State Party of the American Patriot Party PFUSA! Welcome Members of the People for the USA! Cascade Siskiyou National Monument Private Property Rights - Not Inholders, but Property Owners

John Locke - Civil Government
(continued)

John Locke 222: The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their "property"; and the end while they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as "guards" and "fences" to the properties of all the society, to limit the "power" and moderate the "dominion" of every part and member of the society.

For since it can >>>"never" be supposed<<< to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one >>>designs to secure<<< by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making:

"whenever" the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the "property" of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a "state of war with the people",

who are thereupon absolved from "any farther obedience", and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall "transgress" this fundamental rule of society,"

John Locke 149: "....And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the "attempts" and "designs" of "anybody", even of their "legislators", whenever they shall be so "foolish" or so "wicked" as to lay and carry on "designs" against the liberties and "properties" of the subject.

For no man or society of men having a power to deliver up their preservation, or consequently the "means" of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary "dominion" of another, whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with, and to "rid" themselves of "those" who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation "for which" they "entered" into "society". ..."

Foolish Environmental Proposals:

RE: Klamath Falls Hearing Statement, Oregon Natural Resources Council (Environmental Group Now "Oregon Wild" .org) June 16th, 2001

See the Environmentalist Statement - (Andy Kerr)
http://www.andykerr.net/KlamathBasin/KFHearingStatement.html

In Rebuttal

In opposition to such notions that environmentalists such as these have, it is historically established that such notions are founded in the advancement of socialism:

Our advice to Klamath Falls County Citizens and Klamath County Government is to:

1.) Establish County laws restricting federal intervention of local County laws and local County legislation.

The Federal government is not a "party" but a servant. It is limited to what delegated powers under which it was first established. Powers to debate local issues on water use, or land use is not a power that was delegated to it. When the state was created, the land fell to the state and their respective counties.

The federal government therefore has no say, it is not only neutral, but a non entity . The only delegated power is for transferring its lands and powers in those lands, into the hands of the people of each state and community the land resides for distribution to the citizens who wish to reside there.

The only land the federal government may possess in limited portions that have been sanctified by each state, is for forts. That's it.

This is established in the Constitutional Debates, the federal government has no policing powers of federal law outside the "10 mile square" of Washington DC, and cannot create such laws that effect the Union at Large;

Only after a declaration of war granted by states to be used in foreign wars;

State insurrections are state controlled operations that can request aid from the federal government - i.e. other state's militia; but the federal government cannot dictate, the state having full powers of application over military and "state" organized militia while within the boarders of the state that requested assistance.

See Constitutional Debate.

2.) Establish Federal Bills that will Transfer all Federal Lands into the ownership and Control of the counties.

This is to provide local commonwealths most closely effected (1 - 5 miles maximum area) within the county exclusive powers of their area over outside manipulations or controls. Bringing control to citizens most affected within that County by and to any issue of their area.

3.) Ranchers need to work to increase values of land, and NOT fall prey to selling at a cut rate to the federal Government, but to remove the federal government from the county, and remove adverse zoning laws to allow smaller ranches, for homes and businesses of all types so that more people can benefit from the land;

This is far more practical than removing productive land from availability to private ownership by citizens.

4.) Remove the Funnel created by the Federal governments involvement in the county which has allowed paths for national and international environmental laws into your county and state, and you will remove the chains of socialism from your wrists.

They will be removed because "the federal government will not be there" as a catalyst for the environmental movement to ride upon; or for the environmental movement to derive power from, to dictate what you do with your private land.

The power will be gone from them, and into your hands; as you, and your county and local communities will have "absolute control of the land for your personal and family's benefit".

You will have removed the powers of a distant and unconcerned legislator over your private property.

5.) Do you know why your land would be hard at this time to derive profit either in production or sale?

a.) Because you are "denied the right" to "use it" as "you see fit".

b.) You are limited by mandated zoning laws passed from federal to state to county restricting the size you may sell at.

c.) You are restricted by what type of business you can have and where it can be located.

6.) Zoning exceeds simple practical building codes and practical pollution standards and arbitrarily decides what, where and how you live and do business.

Get rid of the federal government and zoning from your communities and you still can retain your building codes and pollution standards, but you will be able to do what you want with your property.

7.) Environmentalists attempt to shroud their intent and goals to remove land and power from communities.

They use "catch phrases" after presenting what they determine a real value which is usually 1/20 or less the real value, then offer to double it for "Willing Sellers" and say, it is because it is "...just the right thing to do" (Andy Kerr Public Hearing Statement: http://www.andykerr.net/KlamathBasin/KFHearingStatement.html )

Kerr and others like him use the same tactics in their bid to removing leasees from the Cascade Siskiyou Monument saying that the ranchers need to be "kept whole" offering them a choice to either willingly sell at "their stipulated price - value" or risk getting nothing for their lease land by simply pressuring the BLM through bogus and slanted studies by so called "environmental Professionals" all trained by college professors with the same prejudice and endless studies that insure continuation of the professions they teach.

They will then will "of course" increase elk herds in place of cattle herds; Then establish more federally "mandated" studies; That forcibly paid by you through arbitrary forced and mandated, non enumerated unconstitutional taxation; So to benefit from the turmoil stirred up by these environmental groups and professional environmentalists for job security through donations sent in from environmental brain washing of others and government contracts... again forcibly paid by you through arbitrary forced and mandated, non enumerated unconstitutional taxation.

Kerr's article attempts to rationalize his environmental impositions by indicating the federal government would be able to purchase what he terms "marginal farm land" after a lengthy speech in his article on how much subsidized farming there is in Klamath Falls, and that at 4,000 feet elevation he presents that it is ...really not the ideal for farming;

This type of statement clearly attempting to disillusion both the land owners and the public into believing their highly valuable land that is ideal for Farming, simply because it is flat, farmable, rich soiled, easily accessible and above all, has extremely valuable water rights...

Water rights which they the environmentalists, of course, are after to take away from the land and really devalue it; so the land itself can be taken for minimal cost now or later.

Kerr concedes that $4000.oo an acre (twice of what he personally has deemed it is worth) is not enough however to compensate for the "loss of life style" ... but Kerr explains ....enough to "get clear of the bank" and have a "little something" left for retirement or the kid's "college fund"....

.....How thoughtful of him, and so not to be construed incorrectly, a statement I sarcastically have presented.

8.) It appears that there are always environmentalists there to relieve you of the "burdensom" land you own from prices "held down from mandated zoning laws" and "controlled market prices".

By getting rid of zoning, the land value will increase because of the many other uses can be freely developed at each person's and property owner's will.

9.) We will show you how to make your farmland valuable.

Convince your county commissioners to refuse state and federal zoning mandates. Our Elect those who will.

Take away restrictions on property so ranchers will be able to break their land into "market determined" smaller parcels, divide the land, build upon them and use them "as they see fit".

The land would then command far higher "per acre" free market prices.

There will not only be money for the kids college fund and retirement, but for investment and farm and lifestyle improvement.

Not only that, but land will be more available for ownership by others and their posterity.

Farmers outweigh environmentalists in the Klamath Falls area;

Vote the right farmers into county positions that will take command, establish local laws that defy state and federal undelegated impositions, empower local law enforcement of those laws and protect the rights and property of the people in the Klamath Basin.

Make your laws and Use the local laws and powers to take control and protect property rights in land and water.

John Locke: 186. "The conqueror, it is true, usually by the force he has over them, compels them, with a sword at their breasts, to stoop to his conditions, and submit to such a government as he pleases to afford them; but the inquiry is, what right he has to do so? If it be said they submit by their own consent, then this allows their own consent to be necessary to give the conqueror a title to rule over them. It remains only to be considered whether promises, extorted by force, >>>"without right"<<<, can be "thought consent", and how far they "bind".

To which I shall say, >>>"they bind not at all"<<<; because >>>"whatsoever"<<< >>>"another"<<< >>>>>>>>gets from me "by force"<<<<<<<<, (APP Note: Without Consent)

I still retain the right of, and he is obliged presently to restore. He that forces my horse from me ought presently to restore him, and I have still a right to retake him.

By the same reason, he that forced a promise from me ought presently to restore it -- i.e., quit me of the obligation of it; or I may resume it myself -- i.e., choose whether I will perform it.

For the law of Nature laying an obligation on me, only by the rules she prescribes, "cannot oblige me" by the violation of her rules; such is the "extorting" >>>"anything" from me "by force"<<<.

Nor does it "at all" alter the case, to say I gave my promise, no more than it excuses the force, and passes the right, when I put my hand in my pocket and deliver my purse myself to a thief who demands it with a pistol at my breast."

Combating Intimidation

Intimidation, whether immediate or eventual, is as much a method of force as is a pistol, or arbitrary law that engages the public powers that possess the means to wrest property or rights to use property from a rightful owners hands.

John Locke 193. But granting that the conqueror, in a just war, has a right to the estates, as well as power over the persons of the conquered, which, it is plain, he hath not, nothing of absolute power will follow from hence in the continuance of the government. Because the descendants of these being all free men, if he grants them estates and possessions to inhabit his country, without which it would be worth nothing, whatsoever he grants them they have so far as it is granted property in; the nature whereof is, that, without a man's own consent, it cannot be taken from him.

John Locke 194. Their persons are free by a native right, and their properties, be they more or less, are their own, and at their own dispose, and not at his; or else it is no property. Supposing the conqueror gives to one man a thousand acres, to him and his heirs for ever; to another he lets a thousand acres, for his life, under the rent of L50 or L500 per annum. Has not the one of these a right to his thousand acres for ever, and the other during his life, paying the said rent? And hath not the tenant for life a property in all that he gets over and above his rent, by his labour and industry, during the said term, supposing it be double the rent? Can any one say, the king, or conqueror, after his grant, may, by his power of conqueror, take away all, or part of the land, from the heirs of one, or from the other during his life, he paying the rent? Or, can he take away from either the goods or money they have got upon the said land at his pleasure? If he can, then all free and voluntary contracts cease, and are void in the world; there needs nothing but power enough to dissolve them at any time, and all the grants and promises of men in power are but mockery and collusion. For can there be anything more ridiculous than to say, I give you and yours this for ever, and that in the surest and most solemn way of conveyance can be devised, and yet it is to be understood that I have right, if I please, to take it away from you again to-morrow?

APP Note: Relate this to US Land Patents

absolute granting of properties and the Attempt of the Federal Government to condemn such land (or water by common law attached to the land) later, or the state to condemn such property after giving consent to adjudicate such transfer by authority of the United States by which it was a party, or to create new regulations upon it after granting it with none; To encircle that land in national monument and control the inroads and water, or to regulate limits to anything with regard to it, or to arbitrarily tax it into debt and thereby rendering the land not owned but rented, when no taxes were in established at the receiving of it, or to tax it without consent, or tax without consent for things built upon that property to improve its value, or raised upon it to derive sustenance and earnings from his labors, or derive any such without consent from those he wills it to.

And you will find that neither the federal government, nor the state government has the power to do so, nor has any power of such been delegated to it by the original compacts they exist under.

For once property is possessed of a person, it is any governments duty to protect it, and not to devise a design to wrest it away after all rights had been released ; As this clearly established by Locke that the protection of property is the purpose of government and the reason that the person enters into society.

John Locke 202. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street may be opposed as a thief and a robber if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant and such a legal authority as will empower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brothers' portions? Or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbour? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it. For exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great than a petty officer, no more justifiable in a king than a constable. But so much the worse in him as that he has more trust put in him, is supposed, from the advantage of education and counsellors, to have better knowledge and less reason to do it, having already a greater share than the rest of his brethren.

-----------

John Locke Chapter 11: Of the "Extent" of the Legislative Power

John Locke 134. THE great end of men's entering into society being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society, the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power, as the first and fundamental natural law which is to govern even the legislative. Itself is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it. Nor can any edict of anybody else, in what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law which has not its sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and appointed; for without this the law could not have that which is absolutely necessary to its being a law, the consent of the society, over whom nobody can have a power to make laws9 but by their own consent and by authority received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts. Nor can any oaths to any foreign power whatsoever, or any domestic subordinate power, discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative, acting pursuant to their trust, nor oblige him to any obedience contrary to the laws so enacted or farther than they do allow, it being ridiculous to imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society which is not the supreme.

John Locke 135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth, yet, first, it is not, nor can possibly be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person or assembly which is legislator, it can be no more than those persons had in a state of Nature before they entered into society, and gave it up to the community. For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having, in the state of Nature, no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of Nature gave him for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, this is all he doth, or can give up to the commonwealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of the society.10 It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects; the obligations of the law of Nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have, by human laws, known penalties annexed to them to enforce their observation. Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for, other men's actions must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of Nature -- i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of Nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it.

John Locke 136. Secondly, the legislative or supreme authority cannot assume to itself a power to rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense justice and decide the rights of the subject by promulgated standing laws, 11 (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) and known authorized judges. For the law of Nature being unwritten, and so nowhere to be found but in the minds of men, they who, through passion or interest, shall miscite or misapply it, cannot so easily be convinced of their mistake where there is no established judge; and so it serves not as it aught, to determine the rights and fence the properties of those that live under it, especially where every one is judge, interpreter, and executioner of it too, and that in his own case; and he that has right on his side, having ordinarily but his own single strength, hath not force enough to defend himself from injuries or punish delinquents. To avoid these inconveniences which disorder men's properties in the state of Nature, men unite into societies that they may have the united strength of the whole society to secure and defend their properties, and may have standing rules to bound it by which every one may know what is his. To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.

John Locke 137. Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of Nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases; he being in a much worse condition that is exposed to the arbitrary power of one man who has the command of a hundred thousand than he that is exposed to the arbitrary power of a hundred thousand single men, nobody being secure, that his will who has such a command is better than that of other men, though his force be a hundred thousand times stronger. And, therefore, whatever form the commonwealth is under, the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions, for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of Nature if they shall have armed one or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force them to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment, unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions. For all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law, and the rulers, too, kept within their due bounds, and not be tempted by the power they have in their hands to employ it to purposes, and by such measures as they would not have known, and own not willingly.

John Locke 138. Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their own consent; without this they have no property at all. For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. This is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists wholly or in part in assemblies which are variable, whose members upon the dissolution of the assembly are subjects under the common laws of their country, equally with the rest. But in governments where the legislative is in one lasting assembly, always in being, or in one man as in absolute monarchies, there is danger still, that they will think themselves to have a distinct interest from the rest of the community, and so will be apt to increase their own riches and power by taking what they think fit from the people. For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from any private man what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good.

John Locke 139. But government, into whosesoever hands it is put, being as I have before shown, entrusted with this condition, and for this end, that men might have and secure their properties, the prince or senate, however it may have power to make laws for the regulating of property between the subjects one amongst another, yet can never have a power to take to themselves the whole, or any part of the subjects' property, without their own consent; for this would be in effect to leave them no property at all. And to let us see that even absolute power, where it is necessary, is not arbitrary by being absolute, but is still limited by that reason and confined to those ends which required it in some cases to be absolute, we need look no farther than the common practice of martial discipline. For the preservation of the army, and in it of the whole commonwealth, requires an absolute obedience to the command of every superior officer, and it is justly death to disobey or dispute the most dangerous or unreasonable of them; but yet we see that neither the sergeant that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money; nor the general that can condemn him to death for deserting his post, or not obeying the most desperate orders, cannot yet with all his absolute power of life and death dispose of one farthing of that soldier's estate, or seize one jot of his goods; whom yet he can command anything, and hang for the least disobedience. Because such a blind obedience is necessary to that end for which the commander has his power -- viz., the preservation of the rest, but the disposing of his goods has nothing to do with it.

John Locke 140. It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent -- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such "consent of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of property", and "subverts the end of government". For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself?

John Locke 141. Fourthly. The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. (APP Note: The United Nations Has No Powers because the United States having limited delegated powers cannot abrogate new powers nor transfer powers, not existing or contrary to the peoples rights, of the united states, to others) The people alone can appoint the form of the commonwealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the people have said, "We will submit, and be governed by laws made by such men, and in such forms," nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can they be bound by any laws but such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen and authorized to make laws for them.

John Locke 142. These are the "bounds" which the "trust" that is put in them by the society and the law of God and Nature have set to the legislative power of every commonwealth, in all forms of government.

First: They are to govern by promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favourite at Court, and the countryman at plough.

(APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists)

Secondly: These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately but the good of the people.

Thirdly: They must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people given by themselves or their deputies.

And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves.

Fourthly: Legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere but where the people have.

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

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

Subjects Covered: US Monument News Directory Report: US United States Government, BLM, US Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, US Federal Government and the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. National Environmental News and Events. Klamath Falls Adjudication, Klamath Project and FERC Federal Energy Commission on the California Oregon boarder. Water, power, fish passage, Indian, ranchers, farmers and irrigation district disputes news and information. USA boarder water law and policies. Laws on water rights and grazing rights. Lease land grazing Federal Oregon and California environmental law disputes on monument's policy in the west. Politics of Private Land Rights, Federal Land Rights, Federal Water Rights and Private Water Rights. Jenny Creek Private Lands Coalition, Cascade National Monument News Directory Reports: US United States Government, BLM, US Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, US Federal Government and the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument law and update. National Environmental News and Events. Klamath Falls Adjudication, Klamath Project and FERC Federal Energy Commission on the California Oregon boarder. Water, power, fish passage, Indian, ranchers, farmers and irrigation district disputes news and information. USA boarder water law and policies. Laws on water rights and grazing rights. Lease land grazing Federal Oregon and California environmental law disputes on monument's policy in the west. Politics of Private Land Rights, Federal Land Rights, Federal Water Rights and Private Water Rights. US Monument News Directory Reports: US United States Government, BLM, US Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, US Federal Government and the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. National Environmental News and Events. Klamath Falls Adjudication, Klamath Project and FERC Federal Energy Commission on the California Oregon boarder. Water, power, fish passage, Indian, ranchers, farmers and irrigation district disputes news and information. USA boarder water law and policies. Laws on water rights and grazing rights. Lease land grazing Federal Oregon and California environmental law disputes on monument's policy in the west. Politics of Private Land Rights, Federal Land Rights, Federal Water Rights and Private Water Rights