|
Declaration of Independence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Constitution: Article VI: All Debts contracted "and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths and Declarations), before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States 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 "Authority" of the United States, shall be "supreme Law "of the Land" ...."
APP Note: Authority and Supremacy are limited to the "Limited DELEGATED" powers; and the words "of the Land" is limited in most cases to mean ONLY within the 10 miles square of Washington DC and only elsewhere within the "DELEGATED" powers. It is NOT a sweeping power, but a exclusive, defined and very limited power. It is a "GENERAL PHRASE" NOT to be distorted or "EXPOUNDED" upon to grant unlimited powers:
Virginia Resolution 1798 - James Madison: 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.
A wake up call from James Madison's testimony and others, 10 years prior:
See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
JAMES MADISON. Mr. Chairman: "...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. ...... Let me remark, if not already remarked, that there must be a cession, by particular states, of the district to Congress, and that the states may settle the terms of the cession. The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend ANY danger, they may >>>REFUSE it ALTOGETHER.
Mr. LEE "... Gentlemen had suggested that the seat of government would become a sanctuary for state villains, and that, in a short time, ten miles square would subjugate a country of eight hundred miles square. This appeared to him a most improbable possibility; nay, he might call it "impossibility". Were the place crowded with rogues, he asked if it would be an agreeable place of residence for, the members of the general government, who were freely chosen by the people and the state governments. Would the people be so lost to honor and virtue, as to select men who would willingly {436} associate with the most abandoned characters? He thought the honorable gentleman's objections against remote possibility of abuse went to prove that government of no sort was eligible, but that a state of nature was preferable to a state of civilization. He apprehended no danger; and thought that persons bound to labor, and felons, could not take refuge in the ten miles square, or other places exclusively governed by Congress, because it would be contrary to the Constitution, and a palpable usurpation, to protect them.
Mr. PENDLETON. "...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,
(N)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"."
Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing "within that place" (APP Note: Today's corruption does not limit this to that area and extends far beyond - Corporations, Unions, Tax supported Special Interests, Undelegated - Under the Original Compact - state and federal bureaucracies as well as Zoning grants & restrictions are ALL examples of "exclusive privileges" granted by the state) ; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have NO operation without the LIMITS of "THAT" district. Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO effect the moment it would go without that place; for their exclusive power is confined to "THAT" district. Were they to pass such a law, it would be NUGATORY; and "EVERY" member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district. This "exclusive" power is LIMITED to "THAT" place "SOLELY", for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary. "
APP: Federal Police powers inside the United States are LIMITED to THAT area within the 10 miles square:
Mr. MASON: "then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive power, as far as respected the police and good government of the place; but he would give them no more, because he thought it unnecessary."
Mr. GREYSTON: "...It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government; but they NEVER had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases. The power of regulating the police and good government of >>>"it" will secure Congress against insults. "What originated the IDEA" of the "exclusive legislation" was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, it is supposed, they left the state. It is answered that the CONSENT of the state MUST be required, or else they cannot have such a district, or places for the erecting of forts..."
Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)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".
The powers of "prosecuting crimes" are limited to "ONLY THOSE CRIMES listed in the delegated powers granted the federal government under the >>>ORIGINAL COMPACT - i.e the >>>ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION:
Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions makes this abundantly clear:
"#2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to:
a.) punish treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and
d.) offenses against the law of nations,
and >>>>>>> "NO OTHER" CRIMES, "WHATSOEVER";
and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and "ALL" their other acts which ASSUME to create, define, or punish crimes, OTHER than those SO ENUMERATED in the Constitution,) are ALTOGETHER >>>"VOID", and of >>>"NO FORCE"; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, >>>>>>>each within its OWN territory."
The original INTENT:
Declaration of Independence 1776:
37th Grievance: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are, and "of right" "ought to be", free and "independent" states;"
39th Grievance: "and that "as" free and independent states they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of RIGHT do."
Political Party Disclaimer:
The American Patriot Party is not a non profit group at this time and therefor any and all donations, membership, fees or other contribution are not tax deductible; Any such contributions are nonrefundable.
That the American Patriot Party of Oregon, serving as National, is independent of each of the State parties. Contributions sent to the National are used to forward the national recognition of all the independent parties listed on our State Party Map;
At this time none of the state parties have been recognized by their states do to the high number of signatures required to become recognized.
To donate directly to your state party, contact your state Chair person.
Because of the party stand against "state born exclusive privileges", Non profit status may not be pursued;
Some states such as Oregon automatically treat those political parties that achieve minor or major political parties as a nonprofit regardless of a party's stand on the issue.
Membership in the American Patriot Party
Membership is FREE by sending in your name, address and voting district to this email.
To be a member, you need only to support the party platform, goals and stand on issues.
You do not need to donate to be a supporting member;
Donations and paid memberships help build the party strength and visibility.
Annual General Membership donation and subscription is $35.oo.
Membership includes annual subscription American Patriot Party National News Letter and updates. Our National News Letter is also available free on our web site by American Patriot Party News Letter link from our Site Index.
To Become a Paying Member
Annual membership donation payments are made through Pay Pal's Secure Site.
To donate further, see our donations page.
Members to our party are important whether able to donate or not;
For those that wish simply to be a supporting member, email us your name, a valid email address, full street address, mailing address and voting district.
By becoming a member, you agree to give the American Patriot Party permission to mail and email American Patriot Party news, information and updates when available.
About Membership in the American Patriot Party
Members of the American Patriot Party are encouraged to become as educated as possible in the founding documents so that they can educate others. The basis of freedom comes from understanding what freedom actually means. An educated and knowledgeable membership results in a strong party.
"....If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved.
This will be their great security ." - Samuel Adams, the Father of the Revolution
The American Patriot Party does not follow schemes of unions, corporations, special interest groups;
This Party relies on the understanding of historical definition of freedom from the Magna Carta, John Locke, The Absolute Rights of the Colonists to the Declaration of Independence. (see papers Index links at left)
The Ratifying Conventions of 1788 as well as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (at right upon arrival) define the intent of the founders as well as the true meanings and limitations of the Constitution.
All those individual rights and freedoms presented which remain in full effect and force today:
To view the below Constitutional Debate in Full see our News Letter "Division of Power".
Patrick Henry: (MONDAY, June 16, 1788 - Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788 )
"... What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the "common law" of England to be "in force".
That system of law which has been admired, and "has protected us and our ancestors", is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights. By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are "thrown away". Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights?"
George Mason: (MONDAY, June 16, 1788 - Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788 )
".....Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "this" government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of "providing for the general welfare", and under their "own" construction, say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not extend their "implication"? It appears to me that they may and "will". And shall the support of our rights depend on the "bounty" of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states.
Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "perverted to its destruction".
Many gentlemen, whom I respect, take different sides of this question. We wish this amendment to be introduced, to remove our apprehensions. There was a "clause" in the Confederation reserving to the states respectively EVERY power, jurisdiction, and right, not EXPRESSLY "delegated" to the United States. This "clause" has never been complained of, but approved by "ALL" Why not, then, have a similar clause in this Constitution, in which it is the more "indispensably necessary" than in the Confederation, because of the great augmentation of power vested in the former? In my humble apprehension, unless there be some such "clear and finite expression", this clause now under consideration will go to any thing our "rulers" may "think" proper. Unless there be some express declaration that "every thing not given is retained", it will be carried to "any power Congress may please".
Patrick Henry: (MONDAY, June 16, 1788 - Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788 )
Is this government to place us in the situation of the English? Should we suppose this government to resemble king, lords, and commons, we of this state {411} should be like an English county. An English county Cannot control the government. Virginia cannot control the government of Congress any more than the county of Kent can control that of England. Advert to the power thoroughly. One of our first complaints, under the "former" government, was the quartering of troops upon us. This was one of the principal reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain. Here we may have troops in time of peace. They may be billeted in any manner — to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us.
We are told, we are afraid to trust ourselves; that our own "representatives" — "Congress" — will not exercise their powers oppressively; that we shall not enslave ourselves; that the militia cannot enslave themselves.
Who has enslaved France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny?
They have been enslaved by the hands of their "own people".
"If" it will be so in America, it will be only as it has been "every where else"..."
To view the above Constitutional Debate in Full see our News Letter "Division of Power".
|
