|
American Patriot Party
with regard to
Distant Legislatures
Distance was, is, and will always be, an important factor with regard to freedom.
The issue of distant legislatures "3000 miles distant" at that time resembles that of the distance between Washington and California, not only in distance, but in the amount of real concern anyone 50, 100, 1000 or 3000 miles distant can ever possibly have in any community which issues involve that within 1, 5 or 10 miles of their location.
And as in 1772 was done against the Colonists, the federal government to tax and regulate us, must, as was done by the British government, in effect must also "bribe" against our interests;
Instead of local county governments championing the interests of the local citizens they are suppose to represent, they find themselves clamoring for federal or state dollars that should have never left the county, so that they may regain the money through "bribes" of compliance of programs from the federal government and state capitol governments; State governments which are also distant to local concerns, and who also allow themselves to be bribed by national and international interests.
------------------------------------
Rights of the Colonists 1772
Samuel Adams: "...Now what liberty can there be, where property is taken away without ""consent"? Can it be said with any colour of truth and Justice, that this Continent of three thousand miles in length, and a breadth as yet unexplored, in which however, its supposed, there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote or influence in the decisions of the British Parliament?
Have they, all together, any more right or power to return a single member to that house of commons, who have not inadvertently, but deliberately assumed a power to dispose of their lives,8 Liberties and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China!
Had the Colonists a right to return members to the British parliament, it would only be hurtful; as from their local situation and circumstances it is "impossible" they should be ever truly and properly represented there.
The inhabitants of this country in all probability in a few years will be more numerous, than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected [Volume 5, Page 397] by the promoters of the present measures, that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy while their property, shall be disposed of by a house of commons at three thousand miles "distant" from them;
and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest: Who have not only no natural care for their interest,
"but must be in effect >>> "bribed"<<< against it"; as every "burden" they lay on the colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. ..."
How clearly we now find ourselves in the same position as those founders.
The federal government forcing taxation, skimming what it wishes to support its bloated dependent bureaucracy, then offering some of it back to the states in government programs or highway funds if the state complies with its policies and national mandates;
Clearly using "Bribery" of the taxpayers own money already collected from them to force upon them compliance to those federal mandates.
Far better, would be for the states to take control of the highways and never let the money out of the state.
The interests of a community is only able to be properly represented by those who actually have an actual physical interest in the local community.
A condition that should stop all national and state impositions at the county border to be legislated by each local community as to its merit with regard to their community and in regard to retained rights and constitutional merit.
Counties that have land masses near or greater than the smallest states that established the Constitution; for which, should have no less concern as a state to their representation and powers of legislation in those lands they encompass;
Counties should have no less the power and control by the people through their own local county legislatures with regard to their local communities property and issues within those territories.
This is the local "Vicintity" described by the founders to adiquately establish true representation to a commonwealths interests and needs.
This is opposed to a local county or community's present conditions which is often adversely and arbitrarily dictated in areas of property, building, zoning, environment and others by distant state and federal mandates not dictated by the best interests or choices of the local citizens.
That such control should be encompassed by those most effected no greater area of 5 miles, or 1 mile, which ever is least within any county, decided in county courts;
Thereby the term of "public opinion" being correctly defined as "those most effected" and "actually effected" by any issue within that area, setting preference and precedence of opinion to those actually living within this area.
The present condition is that where businesses, buildings, towns and cities could be created by local residences, the determination is by legislative assemblies that are distant from that local area, limiting such development by arbitrary administrative decision or legislated "required population", of which bar is constantly being lifted beyond the capability of the local community to dictate; All to be decided by distant legislatures whose concerns are not of the community, but control of those communities by those distant legislatures.
This we intend to change.
Constitutional Debates MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Patrick Henry: "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 statute 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 (the Constitution) "ought" to have declared the "common law in force."
Here we have Patrick Henry describing the inconsistencies of the Constitution and the danger that could very well arise from it.
Dangers which have and are arising every day as administrative law, federal and state policies attack the liberties through arbitrary interoffice policies and decisions from distant legislatures, state and federal, and proclaimed as "law".
This problem compounded through lobbying from international special interest groups, international corporations and national unions;
All which are social "collectives" that through such lobbying attempt and succeed in dictating local policy and local interests.
This misuse of limited constitutional powers is a evident corruption of a clear intent by the Founders that describe the Constitution as having no additional new powers but only those to give effect to those defined delegated powers.
The 16th amendment was and is unconstitutional as it is not founded by any intent of the original compact.
Rights of the Colonists 1772 regarding rights possessed of "original compacts"
Samuel Adams: "When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable "original compact".--
Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact ""necessarily" ceded "remains".--".--"
See also the 17th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence where it defines one of the definitions of a tyrannical government, and reason for our separation of that government:
Grievance 17: "For imposing taxes on us without our consent";
Quite apparently, this was not a right to be "necessarily ceded".
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 "made" in >>>"pursuance thereof"<<< ; and all Treaties (Oaths and Declarations) "made", or which shall be "made", under the ("limited") Authority of the United States, shall be supreme Law of the Land ...."
We have placed the word "limited" so that people will understand that the Constitution and the federal government is not a unlimited power but a very limited and delegated power.
If the states wished, they could remove the federal government in an instant.
... No?
Lets see the "intent" of the Framers of the constitution:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
James Madison (in response to Patrick Henry's statement of caution): 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"."<<<
This of course, should be balanced with the Declaration of Independence:
"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. Such has been the patient suffering of these colonies, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government
But in no way does it remove the right or the duty.
Our government is not broken, it is simply being misused.
------------------
Regarding the Bill of Rights:
Constitutional Debates MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Patrick Henry: "...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 (government) will "assume" rather than give up powers by implication."
(APP Note: A issue exemplified of the federal government of today attempting to make a limited document into a living changing document causing much uncertainty and allowing for the government to assume powers it does not and can never have.)
Patrick Henry: "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 (1776-Confederacy) 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, 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 (with the new Constitution being proposed), 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 (the federal government) "ought" to be "restrained" " Within proper bounds". <<< "
Regarding Limited Powers of the Constitution and federal government:
Constitutional Debates MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Mr. Pendelton: "... 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."
George Mason: "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 clauses (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".
Mr. Nicholas: .."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."
The purpose of placing these debates is to illustrate the intent of the Founders and the limited powers of the Constitution.
That the States, and more so the local communities possess powers over the federal government for which there is no, or doubtful, delegated powers.
Patrick Henery: "...for the power of a people in a "free" government is "supposed to be" "paramount" to the "existing power".
See Also: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, (at right on our Candidates page); Establishing clearly the subordination of the federal government to the states, and the federal government's very limited delegated powers.
That essential natural rights are not removable and cannot be delegated by any legislature:
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should "in terms" renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." ...
"... The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."--...
All Persons born in the British American Colonies are by the laws of God and nature, and by the Common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well Entitled, and by the Acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled to all the natural essential, inherent & inseparable Rights Liberties and Privileges of Subjects born in Great Britain, or within the Realm. Among those Rights are the following; which "no" men or "body of men", consistently with their own rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves give up, or take away from others
First, "The first fundamental positive law of all Commonwealths or States, is the establishing the legislative power; as the first fundamental natural law also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the Society."6
Secondly, The Legislative has "no right" to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people: Nor can mortals assume a prerogative, not only too high for men, but for Angels; and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.--
"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. "There shall be one rule of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough."7
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", ....."
These above rights are reserved rights. As the Constitution has not removed them, and they cannot be removed as the Constitution is prohibited.
From taxation to condemnation of private property, distant legislatures federal an state, have been overstepping their limited authority and powers to control local communities; being pushed on by national and international lobbyists, special interests, corporations; including cities - which are corporations, and other collectives for arbitrary and pretended reasons of need, environment, aesthetics and convenience for control and profit.
Constitutional Debates MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Patrick Henry: "... That paper (the Constitution) "ought" to have declared the "common lawn" "in force."..."
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in answer to the two gentlemen {450} last up:
"....But the common law is not excluded. There is nothing in that paper (the Constitution) 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? (which was done) 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". <<<"
APP Note: Not in "any case".
|
