The federal Breach of Trust

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The federal Breach of Trust

Post by Republicae on Tue 26 Aug 2008, 9:43 am

The People of this country formed a social compact; that compact was contained and detailed within the written Constitution giving the exact extent of powers they deemed necessary to the government. As you note, these were powers that were delegated to the government by the People, not relinquished. There has never been a single power relinquished by the People, any power within the function of the government is isolated through the action of Delegated Trust based upon the Sovereignty of the People.
This was to ensure that the People themselves enjoyed a very qualified Liberty of Action, Freedom from unnecessary restraints, unnecessary requisitions or extractions from the government. Of those limitations, the People in their Sovereignty gave their limited Consent to the government to function within a very, very narrow frame of action primarily for the sole purpose of the defense of the Liberty and the Rights for which they formed the government in the first place.

Any measures inconsistent with that very limited frame of action is to be considered an illegal action and an assumption of un-delegated powers by the government. In some cases where such illegal assumption of powers continues unabated, either by legislative or judicial process, it leaves the People with no peaceable remedy to follow since the general laws or the measures which were instituted to protect the People are ignored, making the ability to have their sincere petitions and grievances redressed in a legitimate manner.

When the government steps away from that social compact formed between the People to provide the protections of their Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of their Happiness, then it proves itself defective; having abridged its primary responsibility, choosing instead to take a more oppressive and tyrannical direction by ignoring the proper function of the powers that were Delegated to it in Trust. At any time when such a government violates that Trust, it becomes a law unto itself, assuming powers outside the realm of its authority.

One of the primary Rights of Action is the ability of the Individual to leave his own community, his State or his country; even the Right to cast off his native allegiance is one of the primary tenets of Liberty. This same Right of Action extends from the Individual to his respective States, for if it did not then the Right of Action for the Individual would not exist since all powers Reserved by the States are a direct delegation from the People themselves through their Consent.

I realize there are some who absolutely deny the claim of such Right of Action however, upon reasonable thought and a small amount of research it becomes clear that such a view is entirely contrary to the principles acknowledged in the Constitution of the United States. That primary principle exhibits that any action voluntarily entered into by the Individual may also, if desired, leave that compact in the very same way he entered. Indeed, to whom or what do we owe allegiance to in this Republic?

I state that we owe no one or anything our allegiance, but we do voluntarily lend our allegiance to the Principles upon which this country was Founded. It is not some person, or an inanimate object such as a flag, or even a piece of paper called the Constitution that either demands or seeks our allegiance, but it is the Principles found within that Constitution that, through a voluntary act we espouse and proclaim our allegiance.

No allegiance is Due to anyone or anything in a free society. It is at the discretion of the Individual to judge the cause for his allegiance or lack thereof; so too, after careful and weighted consideration the same applies to the States who function at the pleasure of their People and indeed the Constitution provides for such actions by the Several States who wish to, upon Concurrent Consent, leave this Union in the same voluntary manner in which they entered it as appropriately and legally demonstrated in their respective Resolutions at the time of Ratification.

There is, at least in principle, along with the Rights of Action, the Rights of Conscience and the ability to have the Freedom of Inquiry which all are entitled to and that entitles the Individual to be Free from the control of anyone, especially from the government which was instituted by the People to which the People have delegated that very limited scope of power for very specific purposes enumerated within the Constitutional Compact. Those elected to government have absolutely no right or power, except when illegally assumed, to do anything to infringe upon those Rights.

Now, notwithstanding, within the delegated powers provided to the government are the necessary functionalities to render certain protections for the People who delegated those powers. So, my statements should not be, as I know they will be, misconstrued into some anarchist libertine version of unbridled lawlessness irregardless of the laws created by and through the Consent of the People and their delegation of powers to government for that purpose.

We are however, the sole judge of our own conscience and the attributes obligated to the direction our consciences lead. Therefore it can be readily assumed that there is no part of the government that has been deputized to regulate or infringe upon the conscience of the Individual. Every single individual has the Right and should be at Liberty to form opinions as he or she pleases and act upon those opinions as long as such actions do not infringe upon the Freedom and Liberty of others to act in concert with their own consciences.

Now, ancillary to the very limited above list of Rights comes the Right to Reform, Secede from or Dismantle entirely the government itself. This Right is the cornerstone of the American Republic of States. It forms the very nature upon which this country was founded. It is the Right to Resist those who govern when government invades the Rights of the People. No government can have a legitimate foundation except when founded upon the best interests of the People themselves and the Consent upon which the government should depend for guidance and deliberation of law.

When a government is effective in both its use and execution of powers delegated to it by the People then it becomes far easier for the People to enjoy the highest degree of Individual Rational Liberty. When the People can, without molestation from the government, feel secure in their persons and their property living quietly and undisturbed in all their Rights without worry of either turbulent or licentious intervention by the government then you have what can be called good government. On the other hand when these fundamental ideals are absent from government then it behooves the People to form every defense against such abuses and usurpations.

The Sovereignty of each of the Several States, which is totally dependent on the nature and character of the People who make up these governmental communities, is indivisible and remains totally integral, even though, through the Consent of the People, all powers of government are delegated. As such, the States, through the medium of the Sovereign People who make up such communities, may delegate a myriad of powers to the federal government without the slightest diminishment of the People's Rights, Power or Authority as represented by the agency of the States. Nor does any delegation of powers relinquish any control over such powers or authority. The States, which were pre-existent to the formation of both the government as it resulted from the Articles of Confederation and by the Constitution itself.

Now on to Secession and Constitutional Liberty, a most distorted and maligned Constitutional Principle. Early in his presidency, George Washington stated that: "free choice, of government founded, not upon force, but Free Assent, and instituted for the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed."
As always, it is rare that well-disposed and content People will join in any attempt to overthrow their government; it is only when their government trespasses upon the environment that promotes the ability of the People to maintain their beneficial dispositions that they would or should consider such actions, and then only after carefully weighed deliberation.

There are, of course, those who, both in the past and currently, think of these Constitutional Principles as false and seemingly have permanently embossed them as the height of political heresy, when the fact is that the view that they themselves hold is diametrically opposed to most, if not all, Constitutional Principles. After listening or reading their arguments to the contrary, it becomes apparent that they can offer few, if any actual proofs based upon the Constitution, the ancillary documents or the Debates of the Constitutional Convention that crafted the Principles upon which this country was founded.

There were two extremely important principles established by the Colonies; one being that it is the Right of a State to govern itself and it is the Right of the People to abolish a government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. It was concurrent with the establishment of these principles that Britain recognized each and every Colony, by name, as Free, Sovereign and Independent States. Thus when it was found that the functionality of the Articles of Confederation were deficient to fully express and execute the delegated powers necessary to ensure the fullness of the Liberty of the People, they instituted, by Constitutional Compact between those who Ratified that agreement, a government subject to those two great and enduring principles that were asserted in the Declaration of Independence. Ancillary to those two great principles naturally flowed a third and that was the Law of Compact, voluntarily entered into by assent.

Indeed, these common principles were clearly stated in the following:
"The Union was formed by a compact of sovereign and independent States upon covenants and conditions expressly stipulated, the mode of its formation subjects it to the principle, namely that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement entirely release the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure with all its consequences."

The above succinctly expresses what should be self-evident, that there is an essential principle inherent within the compact that binds our States based upon both Consent and Compliance to the Compact agreed upon. Without either Consent or Compliance, the Compact is essentially void; our Constitutional Compact is based upon the ancient principles found in Voluntary Contracts. That is the foundation upon which our Constitution rests and upon which all other principles are built.

In the form of the Confederation we find the following:
"Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union BETWEEN [all the States were named]. Article 1. The style of this Confederacy shall be "the United States of America". Article 2. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

That should be very clear, but obviously its not because some declare that the Articles of that Confederation were basically destroyed when the Constitution was Ratified because the Articles were deficient however, if you read the Debates on the Constitutional Convention you will quickly see just what they did when they formulated and then when it was Ratified by the Independent States. The Articles of Confederation were simply absorbed, in all its form and then expanded within a very narrow construct in the Constitution. You can find this throughout the Constitution; the Articles of Confederation remained the building blocks of that newly formed Compact. The only thing that was actually nullified was the "Perpetual Union" formed through the Articles of Confederation; this was affected by the Secession of every State of the Union from the Confederation. As referenced earlier, two States refrained for almost two years from Acceding to the new Constitutional compact and joining in the new federation.

Both Unions were called the United States of America, the style of the foundational system remained the same, only the functionalities of the structure of government under the new Constitution were enhanced.
In fact, to express the actual nature of the States, one need not look far to see that both Rhode Island and North Carolina refused entry into the new Constitution for almost two years. Now, although the Articles of Confederation stated that the Union was perpetual, it becomes obvious that during that period, both Rhode Island and North Carolina were not part of the old Confederation, which no longer existed, but there were also not a part of the newly formed federation called the United States, but retained their former position as sovereign and independent States outside of compact.


Last edited by Republicae on Tue 26 Aug 2008, 9:56 am; edited 1 time in total

Republicae

Posts : 10
Join date : 2008-08-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The federal Breach of Trust

Post by Republicae on Tue 26 Aug 2008, 9:48 am

Now, these States held no claim upon the sovereignty of their "sister" States nor did the States who, through agreement between them, entered into the United States claim any part of the sovereignty of either Rhode Island or North Carolina.

In contradistinction, even within the compact of the Constitution, no State may lay claim or trespass against any other State because to do so is a violation of the principles of Sovereignty. Likewise, in the same construction, under the Constitution, each State retains, by their Respective State Constitutions and governments, their own sovereignty and independence to the exclusion of every other State in the Union. Otherwise, there would be no need for either State Constitutions or State governments, only a general and centralized national government, but alas, that was not the intention nor was it how this Republic was constructed by the Framers of the Constitution. The form of our governmental structure was not only that of a Republic, but it was a Republic of Republics. In the simplest construction, the federal government is not singular in usage but plural; thus the federal government is nothing more than a reflective governmental arm of the Several States formed through a federational compact based upon Consent instead of conquest.

The Several States, by Consent of their People, Acceded to the Compact established and ordained between them. This act of Accession was the voluntary action that solely formed the agreement and by which it is maintained, without the act of Accession the document becomes void. In fact, until the moment it was Ratified, it was merely just another document without authority; for it was the act of Accession, the act of Ratification that imbued the Constitution with authority, authority solely derived from the People themselves.

Benjamin Franklin stated that: "Our new Constitution is now established with eleven States, and the Accession of a twelfth is soon expected."

There was a great debate on the structure of the new government; there were those who, in a "nationalistic" fervor favored a "national government" however, this was quickly rejected until it once again became the predominate doctrine in the 1860s. It was said that the most compelling argument against such "nationalism" was the name given to the country itself: The United States of America, which, in the understanding and verbiage of the period was descriptive in expounding the system of federalism. Indeed, the only resolution to the expansion of this "nationalist" government is to restore, reassert and re-establish the original federal plan, keeping the government within the restraint of the supreme law which allowed the federal government both to reflect and work with the State governments in a balance that hasn't been seen in nearly a hundred and fifty years.

In 1798, Mr. Madison used the following wording in the Virginia Resolution: "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." That sentence is very descriptive of the Constitutional Compact for it declares that the States are parties to this Compact, not the federal government that results from that Compact. In other words, the federal government is not a party to the Compact agreement made between the Several States only the result of that Compact. It is no different than two people crafting and signing upon agreement to form a company. The company itself bore no power or connection to the contract that created it except that the company must abide by the by-laws and provisions set forth in that contract to remain a valid and legally binding document.

So, the source of all power in our country emanates from the States, being the medium of the People's Sovereignty, and is delegated or flows to the federal government to operate at the Will and Consent of the People. It is interesting that in every original State Constitution you can find similar wording: "All political power is inherent in the People". This was not just an expression, an extract of philosophical niceties, it was a truth that, as the Founders realized, instituted Freedom.

Indeed, the clarity of these principles can be found in the words of John Jay: "The proposed government is to be the government of the people. All its officers are to be their officers, and to exercise no rights but such as the people commit to them. The Constitution only serves to point out that part of the people's business, which they think proper by it to refer to the management of the persons therein designated."

Judge Parsons of Massachusetts stated that: "The federal constitution establishes a government of this description, and, in this case, the people divest themselves of nothing; the government and powers which the congress can administer, are the mere result of a compact made by the people."

Pinckney of South Carolina, at the ratifying convention of the State said: "The sovereign of supreme power of the State, with us, resides in the people. The general government has no powers but what are expressly granted to it. By delegating express powers, we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the constitution."

The fact is that no State would have ratified the Constitution had they not believed that the States would not retrain their complete Sovereignty and Power as Independent and Free States. In fact statements to that effect are found throughout the Ratification process, both in the State Conventions and the Constitutional Convention itself.

Republicae

Posts : 10
Join date : 2008-08-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The federal Breach of Trust

Post by Republicae on Tue 26 Aug 2008, 9:51 am

The People of this country formed a social compact; that compact was contained and detailed within the written Constitution giving the exact extent of powers they deemed necessary to the government. As you note, these were powers that were delegated to the government by the People, not relinquished. There has never been a single power relinquished by the People, any power within the function of the government is isolated through the action of Delegated Trust based upon the Sovereignty of the People.

This was to ensure that the People themselves enjoyed a very qualified Liberty of Action, Freedom from unnecessary restraints, unnecessary requisitions or extractions from the government. Of those limitations, the People in their Sovereignty gave their limited Consent to the government to function within a very, very narrow frame of action primarily for the sole purpose of the defense of the Liberty and the Rights for which they formed the government in the first place.

Any measures inconsistent with that very limited frame of action is to be considered an illegal action and an assumption of un-delegated powers by the government. In some cases where such illegal assumption of powers continues unabated, either by legislative or judicial process, it leaves the People with no peaceable remedy to follow since the general laws or the measures which were instituted to protect the People are ignored, making the ability to have their sincere petitions and grievances redressed in a legitimate manner.

When the government steps away from that social compact formed between the People to provide the protections of their Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of their Happiness, then it proves itself defective; having abridged its primary responsibility, choosing instead to take a more oppressive and tyrannical direction by ignoring the proper function of the powers that were Delegated to it in Trust. At any time when such a government violates that Trust, it becomes a law unto itself, assuming powers outside the realm of its authority.

One of the primary Rights of Action is the ability of the Individual to leave his own community, his State or his country; even the Right to cast off his native allegiance is one of the primary tenets of Liberty. This same Right of Action extends from the Individual to his respective States, for if it did not then the Right of Action for the Individual would not exist since all powers Reserved by the States are a direct delegation from the People themselves through their Consent.

I realize there are some who absolutely deny the claim of such Right of Action however, upon reasonable thought and a small amount of research it becomes clear that such a view is entirely contrary to the principles acknowledged in the Constitution of the United States. That primary principle exhibits that any action voluntarily entered into by the Individual may also, if desired, leave that compact in the very same way he entered. Indeed, to whom or what do we owe allegiance to in this Republic?

I state that we owe no one or anything our allegiance, but we do voluntarily lend our allegiance to the Principles upon which this country was Founded. It is not some person, or an inanimate object such as a flag, or even a piece of paper called the Constitution that either demands or seeks our allegiance, but it is the Principles found within that Constitution that, through a voluntary act we espouse and proclaim our allegiance.

No allegiance is Due to anyone or anything in a free society. It is at the discretion of the Individual to judge the cause for his allegiance or lack thereof; so too, after careful and weighted consideration the same applies to the States who function at the pleasure of their People and indeed the Constitution provides for such actions by the Several States who wish to, upon Concurrent Consent, leave this Union in the same voluntary manner in which they entered it as appropriately and legally demonstrated in their respective Resolutions at the time of Ratification.

There is, at least in principle, along with the Rights of Action, the Rights of Conscience and the ability to have the Freedom of Inquiry which all are entitled to and that entitles the Individual to be Free from the control of anyone, especially from the government which was instituted by the People to which the People have delegated that very limited scope of power for very specific purposes enumerated within the Constitutional Compact. Those elected to government have absolutely no right or power, except when illegally assumed, to do anything to infringe upon those Rights.

Now, notwithstanding, within the delegated powers provided to the government are the necessary functionalities to render certain protections for the People who delegated those powers. So, my statements should not be, as I know they will be, misconstrued into some anarchist libertine version of unbridled lawlessness irregardless of the laws created by and through the Consent of the People and their delegation of powers to government for that purpose.

We are however, the sole judge of our own conscience and the attributes obligated to the direction our consciences lead. Therefore it can be readily assumed that there is no part of the government that has been deputized to regulate or infringe upon the conscience of the Individual. Every single individual has the Right and should be at Liberty to form opinions as he or she pleases and act upon those opinions as long as such actions do not infringe upon the Freedom and Liberty of others to act in concert with their own consciences.

Now, ancillary to the very limited above list of Rights comes the Right to Reform, Secede from or Dismantle entirely the government itself. This Right is the cornerstone of the American Republic of States. It forms the very nature upon which this country was founded. It is the Right to Resist those who govern when government invades the Rights of the People. No government can have a legitimate foundation except when founded upon the best interests of the People themselves and the Consent upon which the government should depend for guidance and deliberation of law.

When a government is effective in both its use and execution of powers delegated to it by the People then it becomes far easier for the People to enjoy the highest degree of Individual Rational Liberty. When the People can, without molestation from the government, feel secure in their persons and their property living quietly and undisturbed in all their Rights without worry of either turbulent or licentious intervention by the government then you have what can be called good government. On the other hand when these fundamental ideals are absent from government then it behooves the People to form every defense against such abuses and usurpations.

The Sovereignty of each of the Several States, which is totally dependent on the nature and character of the People who make up these governmental communities, is indivisible and remains totally integral, even though, through the Consent of the People, all powers of government are delegated. As such, the States, through the medium of the Sovereign People who make up such communities, may delegate a myriad of powers to the federal government without the slightest diminishment of the People's Rights, Power or Authority as represented by the agency of the States. Nor does any delegation of powers relinquish any control over such powers or authority. The States, which were pre-existent to the formation of both the government as it resulted from the Articles of Confederation and by the Constitution itself.

Now on to Secession and Constitutional Liberty, a most distorted and maligned Constitutional Principle. Early in his presidency, George Washington stated that: "free choice, of government founded, not upon force, but Free Assent, and instituted for the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed."

As always, it is rare that well-disposed and content People will join in any attempt to overthrow their government; it is only when their government trespasses upon the environment that promotes the ability of the People to maintain their beneficial dispositions that they would or should consider such actions, and then only after carefully weighed deliberation.

There are, of course, those who, both in the past and currently, think of these Constitutional Principles as false and seemingly have permanently embossed them as the height of political heresy, when the fact is that the view that they themselves hold is diametrically opposed to most, if not all, Constitutional Principles. After listening or reading their arguments to the contrary, it becomes apparent that they can offer few, if any actual proofs based upon the Constitution, the ancillary documents or the Debates of the Constitutional Convention that crafted the Principles upon which this country was founded.

There were two extremely important principles established by the Colonies; one being that it is the Right of a State to govern itself and it is the Right of the People to abolish a government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. It was concurrent with the establishment of these principles that Britain recognized each and every Colony, by name, as Free, Sovereign and Independent States. Thus when it was found that the functionality of the Articles of Confederation were deficient to fully express and execute the delegated powers necessary to ensure the fullness of the Liberty of the People, they instituted, by Constitutional Compact between those who Ratified that agreement, a government subject to those two great and enduring principles that were asserted in the Declaration of Independence. Ancillary to those two great principles naturally flowed a third and that was the Law of Compact, voluntarily entered into by assent.

Indeed, these common principles were clearly stated in the following:
"The Union was formed by a compact of sovereign and independent States upon covenants and conditions expressly stipulated, the mode of its formation subjects it to the principle, namely that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement entirely release the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure with all its consequences."

The above succinctly expresses what should be self-evident, that there is an essential principle inherent within the compact that binds our States based upon both Consent and Compliance to the Compact agreed upon. Without either Consent or Compliance, the Compact is essentially void; our Constitutional Compact is based upon the ancient principles found in Voluntary Contracts. That is the foundation upon which our Constitution rests and upon which all other principles are built.

In the form of the Confederation we find the following:
"Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union BETWEEN [all the States were named]. Article 1. The style of this Confederacy shall be "the United States of America". Article 2. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

That should be very clear, but obviously its not because some declare that the Articles of that Confederation were basically destroyed when the Constitution was Ratified because the Articles were deficient however, if you read the Debates on the Constitutional Convention you will quickly see just what they did when they formulated and then when it was Ratified by the Independent States. The Articles of Confederation were simply absorbed, in all its form and then expanded within a very narrow construct in the Constitution. You can find this throughout the Constitution; the Articles of Confederation remained the building blocks of that newly formed Compact. The only thing that was actually nullified was the "Perpetual Union" formed through the Articles of Confederation; this was affected by the Secession of every State of the Union from the Confederation. As referenced earlier, two States refrained for almost two years from Acceding to the new Constitutional compact and joining in the new federation. Both Unions were called the United States of America, the style of the foundational system remained the same, only the functionalities of the structure of government under the new Constitution were enhanced.

In fact, to express the actual nature of the States, one need not look far to see that both Rhode Island and North Carolina refused entry into the new Constitution for almost two years. Now, although the Articles of Confederation stated that the Union was perpetual, it becomes obvious that during that period, both Rhode Island and North Carolina were not part of the old Confederation, which no longer existed, but there were also not a part of the newly formed federation called the United States, but retained their former position as sovereign and independent States outside of compact.

Now, these States held no claim upon the sovereignty of their "sister" States nor did the States who, through agreement between them, entered into the United States claim any part of the sovereignty of either Rhode Island or North Carolina.

In contradistinction, even within the compact of the Constitution, no State may lay claim or trespass against any other State because to do so is a violation of the principles of Sovereignty. Likewise, in the same construction, under the Constitution, each State retains, by their Respective State Constitutions and governments, their own sovereignty and independence to the exclusion of every other State in the Union. Otherwise, there would be no need for either State Constitutions or State governments, only a general and centralized national government, but alas, that was not the intention nor was it how this Republic was constructed by the Framers of the Constitution. The form of our governmental structure was not only that of a Republic, but it was a Republic of Republics. In the simplest construction, the federal government is not singular in usage but plural; thus the federal government is nothing more than a reflective governmental arm of the Several States formed through a federational compact based upon Consent instead of conquest.


Last edited by Republicae on Tue 26 Aug 2008, 9:56 am; edited 1 time in total

Republicae

Posts : 10
Join date : 2008-08-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The federal Breach of Trust

Post by Republicae on Tue 26 Aug 2008, 9:54 am

The Several States, by Consent of their People, Acceded to the Compact established and ordained between them. This act of Accession was the voluntary action that solely formed the agreement and by which it is maintained, without the act of Accession the document becomes void. In fact, until the moment it was Ratified, it was merely just another document without authority; for it was the act of Accession, the act of Ratification that imbued the Constitution with authority, authority solely derived from the People themselves.

Benjamin Franklin stated that: "Our new Constitution is now established with eleven States, and the Accession of a twelfth is soon expected."

There was a great debate on the structure of the new government; there were those who, in a "nationalistic" fervor favored a "national government" however, this was quickly rejected until it once again became the predominate doctrine in the 1860s. It was said that the most compelling argument against such "nationalism" was the name given to the country itself: The United States of America, which, in the understanding and verbiage of the period was descriptive in expounding the system of federalism. Indeed, the only resolution to the expansion of this "nationalist" government is to restore, reassert and re-establish the original federal plan, keeping the government within the restraint of the supreme law which allowed the federal government both to reflect and work with the State governments in a balance that hasn't been seen in nearly a hundred and fifty years.

In 1798, Mr. Madison used the following wording in the Virginia Resolution: "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." That sentence is very descriptive of the Constitutional Compact for it declares that the States are parties to this Compact, not the federal government that results from that Compact. In other words, the federal government is not a party to the Compact agreement made between the Several States only the result of that Compact. It is no different than two people crafting and signing upon agreement to form a company. The company itself bore no power or connection to the contract that created it except that the company must abide by the by-laws and provisions set forth in that contract to remain a valid and legally binding document.

So, the source of all power in our country emanates from the States, being the medium of the People's Sovereignty, and is delegated or flows to the federal government to operate at the Will and Consent of the People. It is interesting that in every original State Constitution you can find similar wording: "All political power is inherent in the People". This was not just an expression, an extract of philosophical niceties, it was a truth that, as the Founders realized, instituted Freedom.

Indeed, the clarity of these principles can be found in the words of John Jay: "The proposed government is to be the government of the people. All its officers are to be their officers, and to exercise no rights but such as the people commit to them. The Constitution only serves to point out that part of the people's business, which they think proper by it to refer to the management of the persons therein designated."

Judge Parsons of Massachusetts stated that: "The federal constitution establishes a government of this description, and, in this case, the people divest themselves of nothing; the government and powers which the congress can administer, are the mere result of a compact made by the people."

Pinckney of South Carolina, at the ratifying convention of the State said: "The sovereign of supreme power of the State, with us, resides in the people. The general government has no powers but what are expressly granted to it. By delegating express powers, we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the constitution."

The fact is that no State would have ratified the Constitution had they not believed that the States would not retrain their complete Sovereignty and Power as Independent and Free States. In fact statements to that effect are found throughout the Ratification process, both in the State Conventions and the Constitutional Convention itself.

Judge John Marshall, later the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stated the full expression of these Reserved Powers retained by the States: "Those who give, may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back; what shall restrain them? They are the masters who gave it, and of whom the servants hold it. Are not Congress and the State Legislatures the agents of the People?"
James Wilson, statesman from Pennsylvania to both the federal and State conventions declared the following: "The supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power is in the people before they make a constitution, and remains in them after it is made. The absolute sovereignty never goes from the people."

In Federalist No. 46, James Madison also reiterated the common knowledge of the relationship of both the federal and State governments were to the people: "The federal and State governments are, in fact, but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers. The ultimate authority wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone." Madison clarified this principle at the Virginia Convention when he said that the phrase "people" did not mean, as the members of the Federalist and Radical Republican Parties later claimed, that "the people as composing one great society, but the people as composing the thirteen sovereignties."

In other words, this country was not to be considered governed under an all-encompassing national government that contains power, authority and sovereignty upon to itself to act or govern in any way its chooses, but all, absolutely all power rest solely in the People to determine the exercise of the agency called the government.

The Constitution, and the resulting federal government, is nothing more than an instrument of agency and that agency completely serves the Will and Consent of the People. As such, the federal government maintains no power, no supremacy and no sovereignty of its own; it only acts on behalf of the People and when it ceases to do so it becomes an illegal and rogue institution devoid of legitimacy.

It was, without any question, understood by the Framers of the Constitution that no government, either State or federal, contained inherent sovereignty. Nor did any of the Framers ever characterize the federal functionaries they constructed through the Constitution as sovereign; it was the People and only the People to were Sovereign, the People were considered Citizens of their Respective States, complete in their Sovereignty; in fact, the States were considered the People, Free and Independent. There was never a hint that either government, State or federal, would or could possess any inherent or original powers.

Yet, for all this, there were those who sought to pervert this sound foundation of government, even today there are those who, in lawlessness, seek to subvert the very foundation of our Republic in favor of a "unified nationalist principle" contorting, through willful ignorance or malicious intent, that the federal government, by will of its own, possess all inherent sovereignty to legislate or function in any manner it sees fit. This pernicious political doctrine, which began early in our country's history, relegates the States to minor factionaries of the federal government and therefore, the "nation"; in fact, they must view the federal government as the "nation" in order to maintain such political doctrinal heresy. They view this country as a consolidated "nation" under complete control of the federal government and its functionaries as a corporate sovereign. Of course, since the 1860s, we have seen this government, this foreign and perverted government; operate exactly as one would expect a corporate sovereign to operate.

It was a self-consolidation the government, fraudulently implemented by force and caused the treasonable destruction of the Reserved Powers of the States, thus the People themselves. The People were herded into a consolidated and undivided nation state; eventually even the functions of Constitutional government were skewed into favoring that nation state. This was a massive transformation because originally the States made up the federation and the general government was federal, not national.

These changes, these perverted transformations affected the very worst type of consolidation, placing within this "national" government all sorts of prerogatives that are almost regal in their execution. It has, for all intents and purposes, become a self-contained corporate body with all the characteristics of a complete sovereign with the ability to operate outside the parameters of the Constitution to achieve both its goals and self-perpetuation.
At one time, the People had the power and ability to place the pressure of their Will upon the government, knowing that all the checks and balances restrained the government and restrained, to a large degree, the actions of politicians. Thus under the guise and form of a Republic we now have little more than a consolidated empire functioning under the auspices of corporate despotism, disguised for its own benefit and function. Under such auspices, as our own history bears out, such a militarily-backed government despot can choose its own direction, its own actions even if it means using force against the People and against their Will to govern themselves by their Consent. In a very real sense, it means that this government can execute its "right" to impose and enforce its assumed "absolute supreme sovereignty" against its own People, and indeed, it has done just that through the years. Today, this government operates under a Simulacrum Constitution that is being adeptly administered in place of the legitimate Constitution, this government now functions under an image of the Constitution; a disguise that merely mask the level of tyrannical usurpation, concealed, for the most part, from the People themselves.

This foul effrontery, illegal and illegitimate at its core, allows this government to find all the appropriate tools to stage and perform before the eyes of the People, all the while its imperial polity is shackled upon the People through a gradual bleeding of their Liberty and Freedom. The People continue to be deceived through an image of civil liberty, doled out to them, contingent upon their compliance to its will, its direction and its self-perpetuation.

All coercion by the federal government is an abridgment of Trust, since each of our States, being equal in their Sovereignty through the People, voluntarily acceded to the Union; the Constitution being the very expression of their Will and Sovereignty, the federal government served only as the agency, in such a system no coercive power over them by the federal government could possibly be derived from the Constitution. It is also logically impossible for an entity, through such a voluntary contract as the Constitution, become involuntarily bound to that contract. In other words, the States, in both nature and character, voluntarily entered into Compact with each other resulting in the formation of the federal government, could not then become involuntary entities merely by the act of entering a voluntary union, the proof of which can be found in the Power of Amendment. The States have the sole power to Amend the Contract through the Concurrent Consent of the People.

Additionally, it is apparent, that under the Constitution, all disputes rising between the various States are to be dealt with through very specific statues; if the Constitutional Compact were dissolved it becomes obvious that the law of nations would be applicable to the Individual States once again. The Several States are the Citizens of those States, therefore, as such; the Sovereignty rests solely in the People and therefore their respective States as Independent and Free Polities. Therefore, upon every possible principle found within the enumerated Compact called the Constitution, the People have the absolute Right to determine the form of government, the reach and scope of that government or, they can, upon proper and determined Consent, withdraw from, alter or dismantle that government. For government only exists at the Behest and Consent of the People themselves, there is no other power that restrains them.

Let us remember, that Madison made it clear in Federalist Paper No. 40, that: "The States are regarded as distinct and independent sovereignties by the Constitution proposed." In the most clarified language composed, Madison made it clear that the Constitution did not then, nor has it sense, formed a "national government" that consolidated the States into one nation state.

By all the references provided to us by the Founders, coercion of the States was to be considered as War on the States. Thus those waging such coercion cannot be considered anything but enemies, no matter what they might call themselves, what color banner they may fly. There was never a single provision made for the federal government to coerce the States, in fact, you will find references where Madison and others decried the proposals of such provisions as totally incompatible with the Republic and the principles upon which it was Founded. As stated, it was the very people who carefully crafted the Constitution that declared such coercion by the federal government against the States as an Act of War, and that such use of coercion was completely incompatible to the principles of the Republic.

The People, as expressed through their respective State governments, possess all absolute power, the federal government being nothing, absolutely nothing more than a derivative of the People's Power expressed through the States; as such it, the federal government, could not express a superior authority when it only possessed a subordinate authority.

The States, in their Sovereign Authority delegated to them by their Sovereign Citizens, ratified the Constitutional Compact between them in the very same way as European Sovereignties would enter into and ratify a treaty. It is an absolute absurdity, and totally false, to content or believe that the federal government could or should have control over the Several States when it was the Several States, through Constitutional Compact, that created the federal government in the first place, making that which is created, the federal government subject to the States that are inherently Sovereign. The only event that changed this was a subversive and treasonable revolution, that revolution was carried out almost 150 years ago and it has continued to press its treason upon this People and this country.

The ideals of the Republic and this seemingly absolute sovereignty assumed by the federal government cannot co-exist. The two principles are, to put it mildly, mortal enemies!

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae-Seditionist

Republicae

Posts : 10
Join date : 2008-08-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The federal Breach of Trust

Post by hawkiye on Wed 27 Aug 2008, 12:48 am

Great stuff Republicae thanks for posting them here!

hawkiye

Posts : 215
Join date : 2008-05-03
Location : SW Idaho

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The federal Breach of Trust

Post by Sponsored content Today at 3:15 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum