Powers Not Delegated Do Not Exist

[Keith Broaders]

According to the words of Thomas Jefferson the government of the United States was created to be the servant of the states and the people. The authority of the government comes from the consent of the governed, not the consent of bankers. The power of the national government was limited and well defined in order to prevent its abuse of power. Any power or authority not specifically granted in the Constitution was to be prohibited.

The authors of the Constitution knew that a strong central government would be potentially very dangerous if it had the power to regulate and discipline itself. They understood that unless the government was restrained, the government would become our master and we would become its slaves.

Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were afraid that granting too much power to Congress would render the states and the people powerless to prevent the abuse of power by those elected to be our servants.

The Constitution was written to constrain the government. If it had the power to write the rules to govern their own behavior it would like allowing Al Capone to determine the fate of Bonnie and Clyde.

The Constitution is like a recipe that needs to be followed exactly. If you add or subtract from it you will reap tyranny instead of liberty.

When making a batch of chocolate cookies, would you allow the baker to replace the sugar with garlic and the eggs with vinegar?

When we allow Congress to assume powers not delegated to them in the Constitution, we give them the power to abuse us. Remember that powers not specifically granted to the government of the United States are reserved to the states and to the people.

A liberal or loose interpretation of the Constitution paves the way for bankers and the financial institutions to usurp the power that rightfully belongs to the people.

As the creator of our government our founders wrote a rule book for our governmental employees. This rule book known as the Constitution defines what the employees of the government can do. Any action taken by Congress that is not enumerated is unconstitutional.

Congress has crossed the line on many occasions and done things that they felt were necessary and proper. This progressive mindset has brought us the National Bank, the progressive Income Tax, the Federal Reserve and the IRS and undeclared wars. 

[Joe]

 Such is the power of democracy, even when designing the foundations for a Republic.

That offer of meaning can be compared with the following words from Thomas Paine in his work titled Rights of Man.

Though the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the condition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself from the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We see more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary people, than in any thing which history affords.

 

Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. [note: look up the word sortition for a possible greater understanding of this time period]

 

Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As these democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed.

 

Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical and aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.

 

As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I shall proceed to remark on some others.

 

It has always been the political craft of courtiers and court-governments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. Let us examine a little into this case.

 

The only forms of government are, the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

 

What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter, or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, res-publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing.

 

It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

 

Every government that does not act on the principle of a republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

 

Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership.

 

But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real republic in character and practise, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of the government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing government on the system of representation only.

 

Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant any thing with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the RES-PUBLICA, or the PUBLIC BUSINESS of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form?

 

It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.

 

It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practise upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., requires a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society.

 

It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no one individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practise, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplying of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences.

 

Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man.

As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them.

 

Referring, then, to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.

 

Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.

 

It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.

 

It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and popular as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It adapts itself to all possible cases. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivaled her own democracy.

That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center, in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system.

 

It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interests of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has been already observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage.

A:

Such is the power of democracy, even when designing the foundations for a Republic.

And the opposite B:

As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I shall proceed to remark on some others.

The law of the land was, is, and can be known as rule by law, or due process, or the Golden Rule of Law, and there are manifestation's of that true law such as trial by jury.

Those who perpetrated the crime of 1787, known as the CON CON, went to work immediately to set aside trial by jury because those criminals knew that trial by jury afforded the people the method by which those criminals would face the noose.

[Native Born Citizen]

Such is the power of democracy, even when designing the foundations for a Republic.

That offer of meaning can be compared with the following words from Thomas Paine in his work titled Rights of Man.

Thomas Paine's words, which appear to have been somewhat at odds with others, are relevant in understanding the concepts, however I am not sure if I made my self sufficiently clear here. 

Even in a Republic we have representatives who govern on our behalf and who, by virtue of a simple or super-majority may accept laws and statutes in our name. When I use the term democracy, I use it as it is more commonly used right now to describe the method of voting, and the existence of a democratic principle is nothing particularly special to a republic or a monarchy. In fact, there exist plenty of monarchies in Europe where the representation of government is elected through a democratic principle and where the government is bound to govern by the principle of a simple majority.

Which is why the concept of a Republic seems rather nebulous since a representative government can exist in many forms. Even when the Constitution was written and debated, the system relied on a form of democracy, in which the ratification by 9 of the 13 states would make the constitution binding. So even at the foundation of what we call a republic, we see how democratic principles governed the process. 

And we see how a democratic principle guides our elections where a simple majority decides who will be our public officials.

When it comes to the principle of Res-publica, or the public good, I wholeheartedly support Paine's position that such a Republic serves the good of the People and is not necessarily connected with any form of government. In our nation, as far as I understand, the concept of Res-publica was combined with a democratic election of a representative government.

In Paine's words, he interprets a democracy to involve a direct representation by the people on all topics, while I use the term to indicate that the people are involved through a democratic process of election.

I hope this clarifies my position. As to Paine, he has had some very interesting things to say about the use of taxation, which leads me to my conclusion that he, like various other leading founding fathers, was quite a progressive in his days.

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence.

It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labor to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund; for it is no reason that, because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it.

and his work in Agrarian Justice outlined a visionary plan

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age

Quite a radical and much can be learned from his wisdom.

As to trial by Jury, it is part of our Constitution in various amendments, and includes both a grand jury and the right for a petit jury.

As I have explained, the 14th Amendment caused many of the Amendments to be extended to the states as well, however, the concept of the Grand Jury has so far not been so incorporated and left to the sovereignty of the states to pursue.

[Native Born Citizen]

Let me rewrite this, as it appears to have caused Joe unnecessary grief.

Joe writes about statutes and how evil they are as they are 'man made' law, adds some religious terms of devil worshippers, but in the end, he describes a system which has existed since the signing of our Constitution. 

Under our Constitution, yes the 'fake' one, Congress passes laws, which are, once signed properly by the Executive of our government, the President, become binding laws on the People of our Nation, and which are enforced through the executive and the courts.

One may not like our Constitution, one may actually claim it to be a fake one, however in the end, we are bound by it. What's the alternative? A dissolution of the mutual agreement? I personally see no reasons why we should, although I am also aware that there are those who may believe otherwise, and may raise reasonable arguments and objections.

I have outlined my belief that our Constitution and the history, provides one with a foundation to argue in favor of a strong government.

I also understand that our history shows how there were those who disagreed with me and continue to do so. I find that I can learn a lot from their claims and positions, even though, or especially because, they run contrary to my own beliefs and force me to (re)consider.

[Joe]

Let me rewrite this, as it appears to have caused Joe unnecessary grief.

I am a flesh and blood man and as one I do not want, nor did I as for, nor do I accept, a false version of me offered instead of me, as this Native Born Citizen member of this Forum continually perpetrates in the form of libel. The crime is soundly defended, the criminal is nearly laughable, and if someone, somewhere is experience Greif, as a result of the libel perpetrated by this member of this Forum, then that one can fess up, confess, raise the hand, speak  up, and be counted as the one who is suffering any grief caused by this libeler.

I am more than happy to expose these libelers whenever these libelers offer to me such an opportunity.

Added to false versions of what I say, are false versions of what I believe, and false versions of what I feel, and the list grows exponentially, despite efforts to suggest to the libeler that the libeler is failing to do anything other than expose the libeler as a libeler in each case where the libeler choses libel as a means of accomplishing whatever the libeler is endeavoring to gain by such obvious, and accurately accounted for libel.

One may not like our Constitution, one may actually claim it to be a fake one, however in the end, we are bound by it.

The treason perpetrated by the criminals who perpetrated the crime of treason in Philadelphia in 1787, under the fraudulent (not fake) claim of amending the existing federal compact is again a libelous twist done by this libeler on this forum.

If someone used the word fake, in any way to accurately account for the crime of treason done by the criminals in Philadelphia, then that one is not me, as already explained, and as already explained the libeler falsely connects me to that use of that word in that context. The libeler adds more to the pile of lies already constituting libel on this forum.

What's the alternative? A dissolution of the mutual agreement?

 The obvious alternative to all but the libelers, and other criminals, is to stop libeling, and stop perpetrating other crimes. Does anyone really think that such an obvious solution to their crimes they perpetrate is not know by those criminals?

What they say, to be law, and the one and only solution to the problem of them perpetrating crimes that they claim are perfectly acceptable for them to perpetrate, such as the crime of claiming that the only way that any victim can stop them from perpetrating crimes is to ask them if they will please stop, is self explanatory to all but them if you ask them.

I can ask the libeler, for example, to please stop perpetrating the crime of libel.

Of course the libeler is going to perpetrate more libel to cover up the already existing libel, that goes without saying.

What's the alternative? A dissolution of the mutual agreement?

Rather than crime made legal the alternative is to outlaw the criminals who took over government. Name each one, and then accuse them of crimes, then assemble a grand jury, then produce a presentment, then that presumed to be innocent accused man is afforded his trial by jury according to the common law.

Of course the criminals will ignore that obvious and lawful alternative written right there in the Bill of Rights.

A dissolution of the mutual agreement?

Exposing the libelers on a forum is one thing, as they confess by their actions, not their words.

Exposing the ones who made an agreement among themselves, known as The Dirty Compromise, is another thing.

Done:

http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/TaxFreedomEmail/LysanderSpooner...

Example:

Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more [*5] natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.

What does "strong" mean in the following context?

I have outlined my belief that our Constitution and the history, provides one with a foundation to argue in favor of a strong government.

That can mean just about anything. The reason for true law is to defend the weak from the strong government, if that is the meaning intended by the libeler.

I also understand that our history shows how there were those who disagreed with me and continue to do so. I find that I can learn a lot from their claims and positions, even though, or especially because, they run contrary to my own beliefs and force me to (re)consider.

The libeler can reconsider the choice to libel.

[Native Born Citizen]

Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more [*5] natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.

Ah but that position may be somewhat at odds with the concept of common law, international law, and statutory law where birth on soil of the sovereign binds one to its jurisdiction and laws.

Once the Constitution was ratified, all, including those subsequently born under its jurisdiction were bound by it.

Let's look at US v Wong Kim Ark for example where the Supreme Court looked at the meaning of the 14th amendment

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

The court then explores the common law from English common law to the early days of the Republic

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "legality," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King.

Observing that

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Pointing to a ruling 

In Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, (1830) 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York, about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, were natural-born British subjects." 3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones,above cited, and saying: "Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: First, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and, secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto.

The ruling observes

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was "to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law," and that it was established, with few exceptions, "that a man, born within the jurisdiction of the common law, is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land; and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term `citizenship.'"Gardner v. Ward, (1805) 2 Mass. 244, note. And again: "The doctrine of the common law is, that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born; and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance was born."

The clincher?

The term `citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a `subject of the king' is now `a citizen of the State.'" State v. Manuel, (1838) 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.

Under this and similar rulings, we come to appreciate that by simple birth or naturalization the United States citizen becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the Sovereign, which in our case consists of the collective body of the people, rather than a King. 

Hope this helps clarify my position and why I do not necessarily agree with the position chosen by Lysander Spooner. 

[David Farrar]

The difference between US citizenship, by consent, and the perpetual allegiance of a subject to its sovereign, without consent, is the long recognized right of US citizens to expatriate that citizenship. Such "consent" can only be transferred as a natural political right to the heirs by their sovereign father, and cannot be bestowed by the state, not even by the sovereignty of we the People.

Natural rights are bequeathed, they cannot be conferred.

ex animo

davidfarrar

[Joe]

Joe has gone even further in that context and refers to the Constitution as a fake. 

I am Joe. The character assassin places false words in the mouth of his Man of Straw, a legal fiction of his making, as his false advertising campaign of Libelous character assassination continues on the is forum unchallenged, with one exception.

The Constitution of 1787 was, is, and will continue to be a fraudulent false flag cover-up of the working Federation that began with a document called The Declaration of Independence. That is not the same thing as calling that crime in progress a "fake," as this character assassin is claiming now.

Perhaps our Founding Fathers had a different vision for our Nation than some had thought?

This character assassin going by the label Native Born Citizen has already expressed volumes of words expressing the same false rule by man dictatorship founded by dictators who did found a dictatorship of their making in 1787, as a cover up, that covers up a working Federation. Both sides work at the same time. The founders of the crime in progress that covers up the working federation works will the founders of the true federation work despite the cover up.

The cover up is pure fiction, but the crime perpetrated by those who employ the fiction are real, they use the power they steal to steal more, and they shed volumes of innocent blood on a regular basis.

Claims of one MONOPOLY of so called "founders," if that is an idea shared by anyone, is demonstrably false.

Perhaps our Founding Fathers had a different vision for our Nation than some had thought?

From here:

http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up

Is this:

Page 13 Luther Martin

One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.

3 groups of so called founders:

1. True Federalists falsely called anti-federalists

2. Those who openly opposed federation and sought to reclaim divine right of kings, which is a false front covering up simple crime knowable as fraudulent extortion.

3. Those who hid behind a thin, and thinning, claim that they were the true Federalists, when all evidence proves that they were the Nationalists which were, again, false fronts covering up the true intention to reclaim rule by man over rule by law.

This is the foundation of my argument that our Founding Fathers may very well have been progressives, in favor of a strong national government, and not a nation loosely bound confederacy of states?

Is the meaning of so called argument a synonym for character assassination? Is this claim of offering an argument, as in "my argument," a justification for Libel?

Was that the true revolution?

Refusal to accept the lies covering up the crimes perpetrated by libelous frauds who extort, rob, rape, torture, murder, and mass murder under the color of law.

Explained well enough here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

Explained well enough earlier, in these words:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

[Native Born Citizen]

Thanks "Luther Martin" quite a player, and yet I had never heard of him. Fascinating history.

Some letters

[Joe]

Good find, thanks, that letter goes right to the true reasoning for the so called Con Con.

The fraudulent extortion involves so called "taxes," (extortion payments) which are then demanded in ONE MONEY, and that ONE MONEY is then controlled by ONE MONOPOLY BANKING INTEREST, and once that is set in motion the ones who control that one money can then create booms and busts which involve counterfeiting the one money, creating what they called inflation (now called quantitative easing) which is then a reduction in purchasing power of that one money.

That was the case when the Revolutionary War started. The merchants of death know how to get paid "on par," for their "services," while those who actually pay the price of war, farmers who are unable to tend to their farms while their limbs are blown off, are paid with counterfeit money that must then be spent at the inflated value, pennies on the dollar is the saying, and then, under such desperation, the money changers demand gold as payment for taxes when those under such desperation begin to produce their own competitive money supplies at home, such as whisky.

That is all very well explained here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

The obvious solution was worked out in Shays's Rebellion too. The federal part of the government ought to have stepped in and demanded grand jury investigation into the criminals running the Massachusetts government, telling those people in Massachusetts to conform to a republican form of government as was explained very well in the Declaration of Independence.

Instead of doing so the federal governors sat on their hands, there was no session of Congress held for that specific tragedy occurring in that specific Republic as part of that specific Federation.

The criminals running Massachusetts would have, if they could have, asked the Federal governors to assemble a conscripted army the size of the army commanded by Washington during the Revolutionary War to crush that Regulation in Massachusetts, but no such criminal power existed at that time, since it was, in fact, a working federal government. There was no Nation Wide call to return slaves who dare to question the order to be slaves, returning them back to slavery once those slaves manage to make themselves free in Liberty.

The criminals were so bothered by Shays's Rebellion (so called) that they hatched that fraud in Philadelphia, and they even managed to convince Washington to go back on his word to retire.

 

[Joe]

"The power of the national government was limited and well defined in order to prevent its abuse of power."

That is not true. The so called National government replaced a working Federal government as it was designed to do. The rule by man returned, replacing the rule by law, because rule by law does not funneled all the power that can be funneled from everyone who produces anything worth stealing to the criminals who then have the power to keep on stealing perpetually.

As soon as the false Federalist Party members stole the government power (the hearts and minds of enough former Patriots) they went right to work with that Judiciary Act which let back in the criminals who were orchestrating the funneling of power that inspired that federal Continental Congress, those Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled, that Declaration of Independence, those independent Republics with their Bills of Rights and those Constitutions, that federal compromise known as the Articles of Confederation, that Patriotic Military Defense of an army of criminals rioting in the blood of the innocent, and the tell tale sign of those criminals infesting the Republics, even before the criminal Tories took over the Federal Power from the Patriots, was that last battle of the Revolution in Massachusetts in 1787, known falsely as Shays's Rebellion, as the Patriots found the same Tory debt slavery scheme of counterfeit government, with counterfeit taxes, counterfeit courts, and counterfeit money funneling all power from the people in Massachusetts into the criminal Cabal in Boston.

Modern Tories writing on Forums now will harken back to their false God that they call Statutes, which are code words, spells of some nebulous construction, cast by devil worshipers, donning costumes, in which these spells evoke blind obedience without question from those too weak to defend against such falsehoods.

That is, in a phrase, blind obedience to falsehood without question, and that can be expressed in words.

"The power of the national government was limited and well defined in order to prevent its abuse of power."

It was demonstrated as false, for anyone to believe the lies told by the false Federalist Party members, whose aim was to reinstate Statutes written from criminals in England and other dark places.

The true Federalists warned, and they warned under no uncertain terms, precisely what was being done as it was being done, and that inspired, at least, an perhaps enough, the Bill of Rights.

Including a method by which true Patriots and true Federalists can nullify the falsehoods so readily evoked, as edicts, or acts, or proclamation's, or Statutes, intending to cast spells on the minds of free people.

No thanks on the supposed claim, it proves to be demonstrated as a false claim.

"The power of the national government was limited and well defined in order to prevent its abuse of power."

Nada

  

[Native Born Citizen]

Restore the principles in the constitution, as they support the intent of individual freedom and individual pursuit of happiness, with righteous justice for all. Otherwise it is all fraud.

Well said. And of course, individual freedom and pursuit of happiness does not necessarily mean that the Constitution and the Republic should not play a role in enabling such. I guess, that's were different people disagree. 

I do not believe that the Constitution requires one to pursue a 'selfish' interpretation and that a collective interpretation is possible as well.

[Native Born Citizen]

That is where we find ourselves now... Losing.

Perhaps that's all in your mind? Truth and justice, however imperfect appear to be quit in control