rect
Patriot News Network.jpg
Patriot Party Political.jpg
American Patriot Party, State Elections Division Candidates Oregon State
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Political Party Patriots 1.jpg
Another Arm THIN BANNER.jpg
AmericanPatriotColumn.jpg
American Patriot MILITIA.jpg
American Patriot Party, State Elections Division Candidates Oregon State
American Patriot Wiki 1.jpg
American Patriot Party 7.jpg
American Party Peoples.jpg
Wikipedia Patriot Patriot.jpg
Voting Third Party.jpg
Secretary of State Of.jpg
American Elections Wiki.jpg
Patriot Party Parties.jpg
American Elections Cr.jpg
AmericanPatriotElection.jpg
American Elections Ct.jpg
AmericansPatriotElections.jpg
Division of Power.jpg
Fundamental Laws of Freedom.jpg
Republics and Represention.jpg
Privileges and Contracts.jpg
True American Patriotism.jpg
Freedom Opinion Consent.jpg
Socialism Defined Am erican.jpg
Slavery American Patriots.jpg
Voluntary Slavery.jpg
Existence of Slavery.jpg
Distant Legislatures.jpg
Patriots PoliticalLeftRight.jpg
Wards of the State.jpg
Enterprises of Ambition.jpg
Pretense of Authority.jpg
ThePatriotsContract.jpg
States Liberty Bill.jpg
APP A TAX - Anonymity Tax.jpg
County Secession Constelati.jpg
Two Candidate Vote Option.jpg
ThePatriotsRecruiting.jpg
Magna Carta 1215.jpg
English Bill of Rights 1689.jpg
John Locke Tolleration 1689.jpg
John Locke Treatise Civil.jpg
Rights of the Colonists1772.jpg
Witherspoon Confederation.jpg
VA Declaration of Rights.jpg
Witherspoon Providence 1776.jpg
Declaration of Independence.jpg
Articles of Confederation.jpg
MS Declaration of Rights.jpg
Founders Letters of Intent.jpg
Ratifying Conventions 1788.jpg
VirginiaRatifying Conventionjpg
US Constitutional Compaign.jpg
Bill of Rights & Amendments.jpg
VirginiaKentuckyResolution.jpg
PatriotsRecruitsScout.jpg
American Patriot Party 9.jpg
PatriotsRecruitsScouts.jpg
APP Opposition Issues Party.jpg
AmericanPatriotsElection.jpg
APP Special Reports.jpg
APP Commentary & Insight.jpg
APP Internet Posts Articles.jpg
APP Cartoons & Illustration.jpg
American Patriot Party 6.jpg
American Patriot Party 3.jpg
APP YouTube Video Choices.jpg
AmericanPatriotElections.jpg
State Party Organization.jpg
American Patriots Election.jpg
American Patriot Party 5.jpg
What Makes Us Different.jpg
American Elections Wi.jpg
PatriotsRecruiters.jpg
APP Products & Merchandise.jpg
ThePatriot.jpg
American Patriot Party Logo.jpg
APP Graphics Logo & License.jpg
American Patriot Party 8.jpg
ThePatriotReview.jpg
Constitution.org.jpg
University of Chicago Const.jpg
ThePatriotStarring.jpg
Cornell University Federal.jpg
Federal Law Reference.jpg
Federal Law Research.jpg
Federal Regulations Code.jpg
ThePatriotDraftPick.jpg
American Patriot Party 4.jpg
Armory Arms Firearms Sales .jpg
American Offense Defense.jpg
APP Communication Directive.jpg
APP Defense Preparedness.jpg
Logistics.jpg
Sampson & Redoubt Defense.jpg
Self Sufficiency.jpg
APP Volunteer Patriots.jpg
International Independence.jpg
patriots

ThePatriotVideoPick.jpg 

 

 

 

ThePatriotsDraftChoice.jpg  

PatriotRevolution.jpg  

 

 

PatriotsFacebook.jpg  

 

PatriotsTwitter.jpg  

 

PatriotsYouTube.jpg  

 

 

PatriotAmericanRevoltion.jpg  

 

 

 

AmericanPatriotNewsFeed.jpg  

 

 

AmericanRevolution.jpg  

 

DeclarationIndependence.jpg  

 

IndependenceGunRights.jpg  

 
APP Opposition Groups:

    Southern Poverty Law Center - The Center for Propaganda for Socialism in America which opposes CITIZEN MILITIAS

    This is in Opposition of the Constitution as it was written and against the principles of Common Law... A REVERSE HATE GROUP -

    LINK:

    SPL #1
    SPL #2 patriot-movememnt
    SPL #3 entelligence-files
    SPL #4

         This group say they want to protect  on one hand - but then allow the deviant of society to brain wash and then misuse others or each other outside the Laws of Nature; Allowing for the existence of Voluntary Slavery  and Slavery - Through the relinquishment of inalienable rights. This Group, Communist / Socialist in nature,  places a form of "Subjugated Peace" under a central national government;  Instead of abiding by the True Principles of Freedom established in small well represented and independent republics;

     See     John Locke with regard to such a "peace"  word search LAMB on his Second Treatise on Civil Government.

    They are a proponent of reverse hate; and are a proponent for the use of National Federal force, cumulated by government "laws" which have been created without authority  - i.e. under the     PRETENSE OF AUTHORITY.

    See Virginia Resolution, James Madison, denouncing when the government makes itself, and not the Constitution the Measure of its powers.
     

 

 

PatriotPatriotHighlights.jpg  

 

 

 

 
ThePatriotTheMovieThe.jpg
True Patriot The Official.jpg

 

American Patriot Party National News Letter - December 2008
 

Republics and Representation

Charles Montesquieu 1750:

"In a LARGE REPUBLIC,

the "public good" is "sacrificed" to a "thousand views";
it is subordinate to exceptions, and "depends on accidents".

In a SMALL REPUBLIC (one),

the interest of the public is "easier perceived", "better understood",
and more within the reach of "every citizen";abuses are of less extent,
and of course are "less protected"."

-----------

BRUTUS (Robert Yates):

History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States.
The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans.
Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country;
and the consequence was, that their governments were CHANGED
FROM that of free governments
 
to those of the MOST "TYRANNICAL" that ever existed in the world.


See also:Distant Legislatures.
See also:John Locke: 1689 - Chapter 9:
                  Of the Ends of Political Society and Government, Paragraphs 123-148


State & County Comparison.jpg  



A quick comparison illustrates the "SIZE" the founders intended "states" should be
in the beginning, for adequate representation of the people within them;



As the states were established in larger and larger sizes, and the population grew within them, the representation of many areas of the larger states was reduced; This has transferred dictation of law to the largest areas of population within the larger states; Usually near each state's capitol.

Most "Counties" in the larger states are larger than the states of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware and Maryland; 

And equal in size to the states of Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey.

The dangers of elite State styled nationalism and corruption within the larger states, is apparent by the control state capitols in the west have exercised over the will of the individual counties;

This corruption has been further enhanced, as State Legislatures have allowed  themselves to be influenced and bribed by federal money to accept federal mandates; To expand both their own and mandated state bureaucracies.;

Financed by money through unlimited and undelegated tax systems  that should never have been allowed to leave the state in the first place.

The state then transfers those burdens and dependency to the rest of the state.

The only solution to this imbalance of state powers, is to grant full statehood to all counties for full representation of their people, and to halt further dictation by Distant Legislatures.


County Statehood

The State of Oregon was established into statehood with 80,000 population or less (one estimate 47,000).

  A Population of 60,000 to 80,000 in any county or any area, is fully adequate for statehood;

And such citizenship should be the dictating factor for the ability of any county todeclare statehood and state independence.
 
No county or area should be restricted by present state or federal laws from being granted full statehood;
Nor hampered in any way from achieving such a population, for justthat purpose.

Declaration of Independence

Grievance #7
A Definition of TYRANNY:

#7.) "He has endeavoredto prevent the population of these states;

for "that purpose"obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners;

refusing to pass "others" to encourage their migration hither,

and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."
 























































































To all State Chair Persons and Party Members:

Welcome again to the American Patriot Party!

In this third issue of the American Patriot Party National News Letter, we will look at the purpose and structure of free republics.

We would like for our members and readers to understand the dangers and dangerous mentality bred of "nationalism";

Republics, it is clear, need to be small for adequate representation of each of the people within them.

The reason for our "forms" of many, presently 50,Independent State Republic"s" Constitutions;  and "oneExclusive" U.S. Constitution states "compact" - which is a SeparateRepublic Compact; is to have two safeguards:
 

 

1.) Small states constitutional republics, under consensual Independent State Constitutions,
      that provide full and adequate representation of the individual and protection of his property;
     which is the purpose of government

      For defense of individual rights and properties; and as a form of law and
      justice between individuals in each society or commonwealth;


2.) An "Exclusive" and limited additional federal "republic compact"
     in the title and style (see Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions definition) of a Constitution,
    (see also Constitutional Debates) under the control and guidance of the many state republics,
    so to provide for the deficiency of security found in small republics;

      And that sole purpose is, for the protection of all "smaller independent constitutional republics"
      from invasion by "foreign powers".

* With a limited role to protect states from invading each other, but  only on "application by a state" for assistance


Presenting again the established defined boundaries of freedom set by history and reaffirmed by the Founders.

Sincerely,

Richard Taylor
Chair
American Patriot Party.CC
American Patriot Party of Oregon

 

INDEX:

 

*Opening Letter
*Comment on our Sponsored Video  *** Sponsored Video from the John Birch Society

REPUBLICS
1.)   Republic or Monarchy? Knowing the Difference.
2.)   Republic"s" - Not Simply Republic
3.)  Requirements of Republics - Reserved Rights and Delegated Defined Limited Powers, covering such subjects as:

 

A.) Reserved are Defined Laws established in COMMON LAW and NATURAL LAW
B.) Limited and "Very Defined Delegated Powers" to governments by "Original Compact"
C.) ALL Laws Requiring the Consent of the People
D.) Small Sections of Land Area so to provide Full and Adequate local representation
E.) On the limited size of the Exclusive "National Goverment Republic
F.) Republics do not have "Distant Legislatures" ruling over Large Areas of Land
G.) Free Republics are not simply the rule of  "civil" "law" through a democratic process; but of rights which "all men possess"

Study Section

4.)   Plain Sense Intention
5.)   The Voiding of Acts of Power
6.)   The Federal Government a Separate Exclusive Limited Republic
7.)   Dissolution of the Executive or Legislature
8.)   Force Without Authority Reinstates the State of War: Locke: NOT ever to be charged upon him who defends his own right,
>>>but "on HIM" that "invades his neighbour's".(APP Note: One such example can be noted where the federal government is attempting to pass environmental bills to condemn private and state land near federal reserves and expand their borders, SeeSenate Bill S22;This is a defined act of tyranny so old, it can be found in theMagna Carta#47. All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly. As former tyrants began planting forests to incroach on property owned by others. The King corrected the intrusion with this Article #47. )
 
9.)    When Authority Ceases
10.)  Who Shall Judge
11.)  What Now is NecessaryTo Return to being Free and Independent Republics:

A.) Transfer all Federal and State lands within any state to the counties;
B.) Remove the Department of the Interior, Homeland Security, Bureau of Land Management, IRS and Federal Reserve;
C.) As defined in the Constitutional Debates, All Federal Policing is to be limited to the 10 miles square of Washington DC for the limited purpose to protect legislation practices and persons in that particular place;  FBI, CIA, ATF, and all other federal police and regulatory forces, Removed from the states;
D.) The States auction to individuals all federal lands and buildings that are not forts or State military bases;
E.) Federal forts were only authorized until lands came under statehood then states had operation and control of all land and forts within the state's territory. States to take full ownership and control of all federal properties within their borders; Any standing military or national guard within the borders of any state to be under full control of the state or state county;
F.) Remove all Federal, State and County, "Departments", laws,  mandates, labor or organizations that have not been expressly delegated by  the original compact of the Constitution; Any retained offices assumed  by the counties under annual consent of the people of each county, shall dictate their existence, hiring, firing, wage and positions. (See: Rights of Colonists - Determiner of wages)
G.) Follow the Intent of the Founders as laid out in theConstitutional Debates
H.)Remove all state born exclusive privileges; Corporations, Unions, Tax exempt or Tax supported special interests, undelegated  federal bureaucracies (not delegated in the original compact-Constitutional Debates- Declaration Rights#4)
I.) Statehood Granted to all Counties within the United States; assuming all powers and independence of a free and independent state. All former state and or federal land to be transferred to full ownership of the people of the State County.

12.)Referenced Constitutional Debate Exerts and Quotes from the Founders:
        * A.)  Federal Police and use of them within the states is limited to 10 miles square of Washington DC;
                 for the sole purpose of protecting the legislative there, inthat place.
       * B.) Exclusive Privileges Prohibited
        * C.) Military Cannot be called out to Execute the laws of the Union

 


Featured Video Study Segment

 John Birch Society Overview:
American Constitutional Republics
VS
Forms of Collective Governments



Before we go into the articles of this news letter, we present a good video that we encourage everyone to watch. This video is put out by the John Birch Society and does a good job educating people on governments.

In a letter we sent to the John Birch Society outlining areas that we felt could better define the delegated powers and republics of our country;  The reply was this:
"
"Mr. Taylor:  Thank you for your comments about the "Overview" presentation.
 
It was our plan to present a reverent view of what the Founders gave us in 30 minutes.  Had we gotten into the areas you suggested, and added many more related and valuable comments, the program would have been several hours  long. 
 
Sadly, we are aware that the American people have been dumbed down and we're trying to address this condition with information and perspective that will stimulate them to want to help save the Republic.  We have already made some impressive gains. The "Overview" presentation has helped mightily.
 
Kind regards,  John F. McManus, President, The John Birch Society"

It is because this video is indeed very good in presenting a education on forms of government, that we have featured it here;

>>> Note, however, these deficiencies:

       A.) This video skips past the Constitutional Debatesthatnecessarily define the Constitution as a "limited" "compact", deriving it's very existence from the consent of independent state republics; as further established in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions that are documents that have also been omitted in the Video; We add this to warn of Blind Nationalism or Blind Patriotism that can arise when essential understandings and meanings have been omitted; and to point the viewer to recognize the difference;

To take note that the "supreme law" Article VI in the Constitution (orwhat was known as the "Sweeping Clause"in the constitutional debates)was limited to the "very" "limited" >>>"delegated" powers for which the federal government could not take"even one step beyond" as established in the debates;  (Note: power of police limited to use within the 10 miles square)

Nor could the federal government arrogate any new powers, as the purpose of the clause was only to give effect to the "delegated" powers:


Edmund Pendleton: >>> (review full debate).

" ...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause (APP: The Sweeping 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 thisConstitution. 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 "NOmeans" depart from them, or "arrogate" "any new" powers; for the plain language of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "delegated powers".


George Nicholas: >>>(review full debate).

"... > that this "general welfare" was united, >>>"NOT"to the "general power" of "legislation",

but to the >"particular power" > of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises,

"FOR the > "PURPOSE"  >" of (1) paying the >"debts" >and (2) providing for the >"common defence" >, that is, that they could raise (APP: "ONLY")  as"much"money as would(1) pay the > "debts" > and (2) provide for the >"common defence" >,

>>>>>>> in "consequence" of "this" power.

The CLAUSE which was affectedly called the"SWEEPING  CLAUSE" contained >>>>>>>> "NO" new grant of power" >."

"To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would beobvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power?

As it would grant "NO new power" if inserted at the end of each clause,it could "NOT" "when subjoined to the whole."

"He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the"extent" of "legislative" powers."

"If they exceed these powers, the judiciary "WILL" declare it " VOID", or else "the people" will have a "right" to "declare it VOID". Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence. The power of providing for the general defenceonly extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts, But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives.This was misrepresented."

"If I understand it right, NO "new" power can be exercised.

 As to those which are "actually" granted, we trust to the fellow-feelings of our representatives;

and if we are "DECEIVED", we then "trust to altering our {444} government"."



      B.)Exclusive Privileges and Contracts(this will be covered in more depth within our 2009 News Letter):

The next omitted issue in the video we found, was in discussing free capitalism, and "freedom of contract";

The video fails to cover the effects of "Exclusive Privileges" that should not even exist in a free country;

-----------

See Virginia Declaration of Rights #4:


IV: "That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusiveor "separate emoluments" or "privileges" from the "community",


but in consideration of "public" services; which, not being descendible,

neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary."

-----------


Also review the above presented Constitutional day debate which the founders state:

----------------

Greyston:  "Among the various laws and customs which pervaded Europe, there were "exclusive privileges" and immunities enjoyed in many places. He thought that this ought to be guardedagainst; for should such "exclusive privileges" be granted tomerchants residing within the ten miles square, it would be highly injurious to the inhabitants of other places.


 James Madison:"I cannot comprehend" that the power of legislatingover 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.

----------------

To allow Exclusive Privileges to exist:i.e. corporations,unions, tax supported special interests, undelegated(outside the original compact)self perpetuated government bureaucracies;

Then to grant those exclusive privileges who possess the greater force of CARTEL, MONOPOLY or Government styled authority; The same powers as an "individual" in a "contract",...

This would not be free enterprise trade, but state born Exclusive Privileged trade.

Allowing that others could also form corporations (which could be an argument raised), is not an excuse to allow exclusive privileges to exist, >>> which should not exist. (see also Locke on the dangers of "lasting assemblies" in legislatures that also apply to large private collectives; - i.e. Such as creating a private union called USRussia and a private corporation named USChina and reside them both within the US - This is not so far from the truth, China and other countries are buying company stocks and US foreclosures at a great pace)


"Exclusive Privileges" is a condition thatcreateslimits of true competition andtrue free trade;

Through Socializing of business; General Collectivism through Corporations & Unions, Unionizing of Government and Governmentalizing of business (ownership of private sector labor and businesses, by government);

This forces independents to join one of the exclusive privileged organizations as the competition between organized collectives, removes competition from smaller independents.

Exclusive Privileged Collectives eventually choke out true  free enterprise; Where, as independents are crowded out, they tend to migrate to those collectives for survival, whichworsens the situation.

Those that join exclusive privileged organized collectives, ultimately become dependent upon them;

This same effect is what occurs in governments who socialize and create dependent work forces.

The video mentions this when discussing the other forms of governmentbut fails to highlight this when discussing free enterprise regarding free trade and contracts in our form(s) of government(s).

 Also it is "A Design" for government to allow Exclusive privileges(i.e. corporations, unions, tax supported special interests, undelegated (under the original compact) self perpetuated government bureaucracies) to have members or stock holders outside the local or national legislatives who owe homage to another nation;



Further, it allows foreign control, through stocks, of American soil and businesses; These subvert the powers of the local legislative and people, causing dependency of those it employs, to foreign interests; who owe homage to a foreign legislature;

 or to a "Cause" - in the case of "special interests", such as "international environmentalism" or Oil industries;

This is against the philosophy of freedom;



See John Locke Regarding "Toleration", where citizens owing homage to another entity (power) gives way to granting that entity soldiers against the local legislative (magistrate) to be stationed within the borders of a Magistrates own Country;

Thereby placing the properties of a country, state or local community under the interests of a "FOREIGN" power.

This is opposed to the local legislative which is supposed to be supreme (limited powers granted by the people), to be fully supported by the people and in-turn for the legislative to be fully subservient in defense of the people's local wishes, interests and safety;

John Locke Regarding "Civil Government": States that governments giving the people and their property into the hands of a foreign power (or impoverish them) is an act that:

    1.) defines "how a king unkings himself;

    2.) or a legislative removes itself from power. 
 

***Read John Locke      >>>    211.)      Regarding the  "Dissolution of Government":
 

Relate this also to our federal government in any adherence to United Nations policies, or Private Federal Reserve Bank.


Further, it creates a independent private collective, not unlike a independent government;

     >>>Apart from the existing legislative;

Creating dependency of those it employs who owe their alliance to a president of a corporation;

     >>> Not to the defense of essential natural rights; or to the support of the local elected legislative, where it should be.

---------

Locke presents an interesting and important note:That because it is done without authority, as authority is removedat thetime of the act which he describes removes it.;

Not the "least right" is lost from the people themselves to those it was granted to, by any unauthorized or undelegated act.

Thereby those, foreign or otherwise, who entertain any unauthorized grant or loan through or by a corrupt or disingenuous executive or legislative,gain NOTHING; and can loose EVERYTHING by their business, investment, flattery or entertaining unauthorized acts, which is ANY ACT made by our government, that impoverishes or unduly indebts the people; or conveys any US property into or under the power of a foreign power.

The States and the people remain faultless and debtless; as "not the least right" or property is transferred by the unauthorized act.

 

---------------------

John Locke on Civil Government:

 #238:

 "The other case is, when a king (Applies also to Legislative #201) makes himself the >>>"DEPENDENT of ANOTHER"
(APP: Including Debt as to China), and subjects his kingdom, which his ancestors left him, and the people put free into his hands, to the DOMINION of ANOTHER.

(APP: If the people are in debt to China, we are DEPENDENT of, under DOMINION of & OUTSIDEConstitutionalAuthorization)

For however, perhaps, it may not be his intention to prejudice the people, "YET"because he has hereby lost the principal part of regal dignity -- viz., to be next and immediately under God, supreme in his kingdom; and also because he betrayed or forced his people, whoselibertyhe ought to have carefully preserved, into the power and dominion of a "foreign nation".

(APP: The recent acts of our Federal Legislative indebting us to China or to OTHERS is not "simply finance",
it conveys an assumption of power over us if we cannot repay; or if our dollar devalues to a point impossible to repay)

By this, as it were,alienation of his kingdom, he himself LOSES the power he had in it before,

 (APP: IMPORTANT)>>> "without" transferring "ANY" the >>> "least right" to "those" on whom he would have "bestowed it";

and so by this actsets the people "free", and leaves them at their "own" disposal. ..."


# 202:

 "...ForEXCEEDINGtheBOUNDSof"AUTHORITY" isno more a rightin a great than a petty officer,no more justifiable in a king than a constable. But so much the "worse"in him as that he has more trust put in him, is supposed, from the advantage of education and counsellors, to have better knowledge and less reason to do it, having already a greater share than the rest of his brethren."

----------------------------
 

Locke illustrates the ways government removes itself from authority:

John Locke:Chapter 19: Of the Dissolution of Government

# 212: "...First. When thelegislative is"altered"..."
# 213: "...misuse the power they have..."
# 214: "...when such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary willin place of the laws which are thewill of the society declared by the legislative, then the legislative is "changed."
# 215: "...when the princehinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is "altered."
# 216: "...arbitrary power of the prince, the electors or "ways of election" are altered "without the consent" and contrary to the common interestof "the people", there also thelegislative is "altered".
# 217: "...the delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince or by the legislative, is certainly a "change" of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government. For the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free, independent society to be governed by its ownlaws, thisis "LOST" WHENEVER they are given up into the power of "ANOTHER".

Not onlyhas our federal Legislature placed itself at risk, but the state's legislatureswho take part are also at risk, andshould take special care not to continue to be brought into the dealings of a corrupt federal legislature, by mandates, undelegated taxation, UN resolutions, or any type of political, private, foreign interest or national special interest vehicle.

>>>>>>> It is both a State and >>>>>>> County responsibility that these do not enter or reside within their borders. Counties have no less the duty and responsibility to act and VOID any such intrusions,

These includecounty commissions, county JUDICIAL being the first guard; and people of each county:

George Nicholas, Constitutional debates:"He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in "ALL" well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers."  "If they exceed these powers, the >>> "JUDICIARY" "WILL" declare it " VOID", or else>>>"the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to "DECLARE it VOID"

Therefore:

Collectives, it is found, can be private, as well as in government;

Private collectives such as international corporations, granted "that exclusive privilege" by the states, can, and often do when large enough, take on the structure of establishment of governmentswithout borders or allegiance to any territory, legislative or community commonwealth; Yet having the ability to manipulate them through dependency, bribery, power and favors;

Such through"exclusive privileges", often protected through "limited liabilities", for their actions, granted by the state itself, can be used and adapted for the abuse of political powers of anyone in the position to weld them, and therefor dangerous to any and all civil societies.

*** While Watching this Very Good John Birch Society Video:

Please make note of the above deficiencies; and to Recognize the dangers and emotions of "Nationalism" examined in this video, Weighing them against Small Independent United Republics and Historical Constitutional Law also illustrated:
 




















 

  

 

Locke # 226. Thirdly: I answer, that this power in the people of providing for their safety anew by a new legislativewhen their "legislators"have acted "contrary" to their trust by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probable means to hinder it.

For rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but authority, which is foundedonly in the constitutions and laws of the government: those, whoever they be, who, by force, break through, and, by force,justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels.

For when men, by entering into society and civil government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves, those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, do rebellare -- that is, bring back again the state of war, and are properly rebels, which they who are in power, by the pretence they have to authority, the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the flattery of those about them being likeliest to do, the proper way to prevent the evil is to show them the danger and injustice of it who are under the greatest temptation to run into it.


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

For if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he therebytakes away the umpirage which every one had consented to for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They who "remove or change" the legislative take away this decisive power, which nobody can have but by the appointment and "consent of the people", and so destroying the authority which the people did, and nobody else can, set up, and introducing a power which the people "hath not authorised", actually introduce a "state of war", which is that of force without authority; and thus by removing the legislative established by the society, in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their own will, they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the state of war.

And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the >>>"LEGISLATORS" "THEMSELVES", as has been shown,can be "NO LESS esteemed so", when>>>"THEY" who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties shall by force invade and "endeavour to take them away";

and so>>>"THEY"putting>>>"themselves"into a "state of war"with"those"who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace,

are "properly",

and with the "greatest aggravation", >>>>>>> rebellantes, rebels
 




































































































































































































































































































































































































 

1.) Republic or Mixed Monarchy?

In reviewing the historical documents, we can clearly establish what the founders intended;

Thomas Jefferson and James  Madison Authors of the Declaration of Independence an Constitution made it  clear years after the Constitution was signed in writing the:

 

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions:

" ...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" toexpoundcertain"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 thepresent republican system (1798) of the United States,

 into an absolute, or at best a mixed "monarchy"."

 

Then, do to our gradual release of state powers, are we presently a Mixed Monarchy, or are we a Republic?

As defined and cautioned, by the authors themselves, when our federal government (or states)elude to establishing and practicing undelegated powers that are"no where granted to the federal government"; or consolidating the states using words or expounding on "General Phrases", whether in law or in any national oath or pledge,  by "claiming" "one nation";  It is a "definedindication" or "design" that the federal government, it's legislative, judicial and executive branches,through and bywhatever forces that have, and continue to sway their actions and encourage the federal government outside it's very limited delegated powers, a clear attempt to "change" the legislative(see Locke on the Dissolution of Power upon change of the Legislative) and combine theindependent republic(s) and limited exclusive federal republic; into one, and create a mixed monarchy;

The number of families that migrate to Washington DC or whoever may hold sway over the federal legislative's actions, and manipulate the distant states  through federal mandates, is clear indication of such a design, and existence of such a "mixed monarchy"nowpresent.
 



This has occurred by and through many visible controlling features:  

1.) Undelegated federal powers;

        Expansion of those powers through undelegated "DEPARTMENTS"

2.) Unlimited non-enumerated federal taxation and outside the purpose of taxation for defense;

        Which such taxation is used to empower federal mandates which create a form of bribery;

(See also Dangers Distant Legislatures with regard to such bribery)

3.) Wherein the states allow unconstitutional undelegated non enumerated tax money that should never have been allowed to leave their states, to be used as a federal "tool" to bribe the states to comply with their mandates in order to get that money back;

4.) The States in turn use that money to create more state and county bureaucracies to enact and enforce the mandates creating yet more DEPENDENCY on the money attached to both next years mandates and continuing compliance with the previous years mandates.

Such manipulative practices have been placed to limit state's independence and to exert the will of the federal legislature over the state legislatures.

It is the states and counties themselves who create their own dependency and addiction.

Allowing within their borders, that which should not be allowed.
























 

 


 

 


We are of course 50 independent State Nation Republics with Constitutions;

Which are in "possession and control" of  anotherseparate "exclusivecompact" - a single "limited federal republic",

in the form and title of a "Constitution of the United States".

This remains, unless the federal government attempts to make itself,and not the constitution, the extent of its power by exceeding it's limited delegated powers.  (See this description in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions)


 

2.)  Republic "s" - Not Simply a  Republic.
 


A "Free" Republic is not just the establishment of a law, or any rule of any law, nor is it simply a "national" cause.

A "Free" Republic by the founders has certain definitions and limitations.
 

When Benjamin Franklin exclaimed after the Constitution was signed to the question:

 "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

Benjamin Franklin replied "A republic, if you can keep it"


Did he mean a republic as a single nation? Of course not;

Throughout the constitutional debates it was firmly established that the Constitution was a limitedExclusiveCOMPACT between the independent states;

John Marshall: "The state governments DID NOT derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the PEOPLE, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this?

...For "Continental purposes" Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is  "NOT taken away";for the Constitution does NOT "say so". In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also".

The power of legislating given them within the "ten miles square" is "exclusive of the states", because it is "expressed to be exclusive".The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the states. To me it appears, then, "unquestionable"that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption.(Read Full)


And the states had and have the power to discontinue it at any time if they are so much as to be dissatisfied with it:

James Madison:(Constitutional Debate: 6-16 (14) - 1788)
"...An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself,
which deserves to be attended to.
*** If we be dissatisfied with the national government,
if we "should choose to renounce {415} it",
"this is an additional safeguard to our defence"."


Would dissolving the present federal government destroy the Constitution? Would it destroy the Country?

No.

This Country and our United Independent States, our Independent State Constitutions,  our local communities and our Common Law Rights, are far more resilient than  any national government, any form of government;

There has been some talk of  the possibility of a Constitutional Convention (sometimes referred as "concon"); which of course we are opposed to; as there is no rational reason for one. The Constitution is not broke, it is simply being misused; Also some have presented dangers where there may be a possibility of being stripped of our rights; To this we answer: Nothing removes natural Rights, which no government can justly hold powers over; Except through tyranny,  which is force without right; Therefor, if ever in existence, or even before, it can, and would be, perpetually opposed until destroyed.

Nor could a convention of any kind be used to empower the federal government beyond it's delegated powers in the original compact; Nor hand it's powers, or the people into the hands of any other government, entity or world counsel. Even the verbal or written mention of such a goal by the legislature,dissolves the legislature and places itself at war with it's own people.

Essential natural rights further could never be consensually granted away by any individual's consent; or removed by state ratification; as any such law or compact proposing or imposing such a thing would be, and would remain, VOID;

That government which attempted such "breech of trust" as John Locke presents it, or any invasion of essential natural rights, would immediatelycease it's authority, as it could never be granted any such authority. Those guilty or taking any possition, could be opposed as people with no authority in a way one opposes any enemy.

As to the risk of handing the people into the hands of another or "international government", or granting powers to; or forming an authority over the people, by "any" other "form" of government, would, by even the contemplation of it, by either the executive, legislative or judicial, would alsoimmediately remove their authority;

 This type of act as John Locke, describes, is an act to which a king, "unkings" himself; or the legislative dissolves and removes itself from power and authority, and they become as but men equal to all others;The people beingset completely free.

(See Locke #211-#243  Dissolution of Government & #237 to #241 UnKing - which see this link),

***FurtherLocke states, That NOT ONE right is transferred by such an act, to "those he or they would have bestowed it".



Locke 239:

"In these cases Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to allow that a king may be resisted, and ceases to be a king. That is in short -- not to multiply cases -- in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king, and may be resisted: for wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes "like other men who have no authority". And these two cases that he instances differ little from those above mentioned, to be destructive to governments, only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows, and that is the "breech of trust"

in >>>not preserving the form of government "agreed on",(i.e "Original Compact")

and in not intending the "end of government" itself, which is the public good and preservation of "property".
When a king has dethroned himself, and put himself in a "state of war" with his people,
what shall hinder them from prosecuting "him who is no king",
as they would "any other man", who has put himself into a "state of war" with them,



The Constitution further can remain, WITHOUT a constitutional convention, while the "federal government" is stopped by the states, and reduced in it's reach and power within the states.

Additional Safeguards to freedom can be expanded at any time;while "delegated powers" in the "original compact" "cannot";

This would be using a "convention" or other means as a form to ARROGATE NEW powers. Which it was in the Constitutional debates expressly prohibitted. It woulddissolve the federal legislature, as well as any state legislature that attempted to place the people under a different compact than the "original compact".

The federal government however can be forced into even greater constrictions and limited in size and in function;

George Nicholas: He then proceeded thus:

But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which,

in "all" well-regulated communities, "determines" the "extent" of "legislative" powers.

If they exceed these powers, the "judiciary" "will" "declare it void",

or else"the people" will have a  "right" to declare it void"."

 


The federal government can be bound with stronger chains to force it's adherence to the "delegated"powers;

And within the Constitution's "plain sense intentions"(see this definition in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions see this link)

The Federal government can also be forced it to look only outside the United States for solely defense there;

Limited by the delegated powers and not involve itself with the affairs of the states or private lives and property of the people.
(see also Anonymity Tax)

This can be done by "resolutions" made by each of the "state legislatures" outside federal legislature.



Mr. JOHN MARSHALL(Constitutional Debate: 6-16 (14) - 1788)"asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken.

The STATE governments "DID NOT" derive their powers from the "general government";

but each government derived its powers from THE PEOPLE,

and >>>each was to >>>act according tothe powers given it.

Would any gentleman deny this?

He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states,as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away."

"For >>>Continental purposes (APP: foreign invasion and defense of states from other states upon "application of a state" republic)

Congress may call forth the militia (APP: the true intent of general "welfare"), as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

But the power given to >>>the states >>>by the >>>people is "not taken away";

for the >>>Constitution >>>does NOT say so.

In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also". The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is "exclusive of the states", because it is expressed to be "exclusive". The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it.

But there are >>>NO negative words here.

It rests, therefore, >>>with the STATES."
 



3.) Requirements of Republics,
Reserved Rights and Delegated Defined Limited Powers:


Our laws have been established by what is, and what is not granted;

Powers and Rights "Retained" or Reserved by the people - which is everything "not" granted.

Meaning All those powers which were not delegated to the federal government, in the "original compact".



Other Reserved Rights of the People, and Restrictions on Government:

A.) Reserved Rights of the people are also Defined Rights established in COMMON LAW and NATURAL LAW;
Historically and factually based uponChristian principles and Nature. These are: Retained >>> "Essential Natural Rights".

These were NOT given up in the Constitution:

 

Constitutional Debates:

George Nicholas:"...But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT excluded".
There is "nothing" in that paper (The Constitution) to warrant the assertion."

 
APP note: Referring to the US Constitution being considered;
See also History of rights


 

B.) Limited and "very defined Delegated Powers" are granted to governments by "Original Compact" or Constitutions;

 Where as Arrogated powers, outside the delegated powers, are NOT allowed:


Edmond 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, 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"."



C.) ALL LawsRequire the "Consent" of the People of every State, County and Commonwealth;

Greyston:

Mr. Chairman, one answer which has been given is,
 the improbability of the evil that it will never be attempted,
and that it is almost impossible.

This will not satisfy us,

when we consider the great attachments men have
to a "great and magnificent" "capital".

It would be the interest of the citizens of that district
to aggrandize themselves by every possible means in their power,
to the great injury of the other states.

 He cannot apply to the ten miles square.
 It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government;
 but they >>> never had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases.

"The power of regulating the police and good government of it will secure Congress against insults.
What "originated the idea" of the exclusive legislation was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania,
whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, it is supposed, they left the state.

>>>It is answeredthat the >>>"consent of the state"must be required,
 
or else they CANNOT have such a district,

(APP: See the Consent Requirement below)

"or" places "for" the erecting of"forts",

(***APP: See the VERY LIMITED of use of this power outside the 10 miles square -
ONLY for "forts" in areas not yet developed into states.)

"&c. But how much is already given them!
Look at the great country to the north-west of the Ohio, extending to and commanding the lakes.
Look at the other end of the Ohio, towards South Carolina, extending to the Mississippi.
See what these, in process of time, may amount to.

They may>>>grant "exclusive privileges" to any particular part of which they have the possession.

>>>But it may be observed that those "extensive countries" will be formed into

>>> "independent states",

and that "their"

(the States and people's)

>>> "CONSENT" "will be "NECESSARY".

(the States and people's CONSENT to ANYTHING outside the 10 miles square)

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


***APP: Written 200 years ago or yesterday, this statement shows clear understanding of what is now happening.
 



D.)Small Sections of Land Areaso to provide Full and Adequate local representation for individuals and very small local communities through  Independent States Legislatures and Local County Legislatures;

Charles Montesquieu (1750) on the issue of the ideal size of a republic, citing his statement in "The Spirit of the Laws" that:

---------

Charles Montesquieu 1750

"...It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist.

In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject;  he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy,  great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country.


In a LARGE REPUBLIC, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views;it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents.


In a SMALL REPUBLIC (one), the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected."



 Brutus recognized that the Greek and Roman states were small and was envisioned by many Americans as model republics.

Brutus as with Montesquieu points out that the "expansion" of these "republics"
resulted in a transition "from" free government "to" tyranny.[10]
 


Brutus: "&History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States.

The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans.

Both of these, it is true,in process of time, extended their conquests over"large territoriesof country";


and the >>> "CONSEQUENCE" was, that their governments were "CHANGED"

from that of free governments>>>to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world&".


>>>>>>>APP NOTE: READ THAT AGAIN!

Compare with the definition given by James Madison in the Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions if the Federal Government
were "to ever consolidate" the states into "One Nation" it would Change the Republic into a Monarchy or Mixed Monarchy.
Use this Link to see Full Resolutions or See Next James Madison Quote Below.


"Brutus continued:  ...In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar.If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as  will promote the public good.

If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it "forbids" that we should be one government&. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite;
each would be in favor of its own interests and customs&.

In a republic of such vast extent as the United-States, the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts&. In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would >>>"SOON become above the control of the people", and >>>abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them.

The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States, must be various and of magnatude. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences,

the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers,
must be lodged and exercised in "every state", in the hands of >>>"a few"&.

They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to thepurposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.

--------


This Follows John Locke #133 description of "Commonwealths":


--------

133. By "commonwealth" I must be understood all along to mean not a democracy,orany form of government, but

any "independent community" which the Latins signified by the word "civitas",

to which the word which best answers in our language is "commonwealth," and most properly expresses such"a society of men which "community" does not" (for there may be subordinate communities in a government), and "city" much less.

And therefore, to avoid ambiguity, I crave leave to use the word "commonwealth" in that sense, in which sense I find the wordused by King James himself, which I think to be its genuine signification, which, if anybody dislike, I consent with him to change it for a better.

--------

APP: i.e. A small, closely represented and independent free society.

Those with local common interests;which reduces the size even smaller.

Other definitions describe it as "Tribes".

--------

James Madison - Virginia Resolutions:

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 certaingeneral "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,
theobvious 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...."

--------


E.)On the limited size of the Exclusive "National Government Republic":

 

James Madison: "Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir,
that the clause under consideration was one of those parts
which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary to say any thing concerning it.

Strike it out of the system, and let me ask whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers.

I cannot comprehend that the power of legislatingover a "small district",

which "cannot exceed ten miles square",

and may "not be more than one mile",

will involve the dangers which he apprehends..."


APP: NOTE THE "SIZE LIMITATION" JAMES MADISON INDICATES
Forts in areas the states were not yet developed
are the ONLY Exception to "DEPARTMENTS" or "Needful buildings" outside the 10 miles square of Washington D.C.



(APP Note: It would seem Madison Makes a very contrary statement. .....That is "until they began stepping outside" the "delegated powers" Expanding Undelegated "Departments" and steppingoutside the "ten miles square"....)

Here James Madison describes in the Constitutional Debates, what he will later refer to in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
as "PLAINSENSEINTENTIONS":

James Madison: "The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so,what new terrors can arise from this particular clause?It is only a superfluity. If that "LATITUDE" of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the sweeping clause, there WOULD be room for those horrors. But it gives NO supplementary power.It only enables them to execute the delegated powers. "If" the "delegation" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "but" explanatory."
 

F.) Free Republics do not have"Distant Legislatures"ruling overLarge Areas of Land;
(See our article on "Distant Legislatures" covering this .)
 

G.) Free Republics are not simply the rule of  "civil" "law" through a democratic process; but of rights which "all men possess".

Smiths Dictionary 1875 : "Civitis""...Ifany rights and dutieswhich belong to a member of this civitas, and do not belong to any person not a member of this civitas, are omitted in the enumeration, it is an incomplete enumeration;for the rights and duties not expressly includedmust be assumed as common to the members of this civitasand to all the world, or, to use a Roman expression, they exist jure gentium. Having enumerated all the characteristics of the members of any given civitas, we have then  to show how a man acquires them, and how he loses them, and the notion of  a member of such civitas is then complete...."

John Locke:#133. By "commonwealth" I must be understood all along to mean not a democracy,orany form of government, but any "independent community" which the Latins signified by the word "civitas"

Declaration of Independence: " ....all men are created equal .... and possess certain, inalienable, rights;
Constitution: "...are reserved to the states or to the people.
Constitutional Debates: "...But the "COMMON LAW"is "NOT excluded". There is "NOTHING" in that paper (APP note: referring to the US Constitution being considered)  to warrant the assertion."


Some Key Points:

a.) A "Free Republic" is Not a Total Democracy; As it is subject to an Original Compact and Historical Basis of Common Law; God and Natures Laws.
b.) "Free Republics" have Representatives that Represent The People's Local wishes or demands and act as a Deputy to deliver the people's decision; This is another reason that republics need to be small so that those within them  have common intrests.
c.) Monarchies have Representatives that Represent through their "own personal" decisions over and above those who have elected them.  
d.) Free Republics are Bottom Up - Monarchies are Top Down.
e.) The Federal Government: a Separate, Exclusive, Delegated and Limited, States Controlled, Republic Compact or Charter under the title of a Constitution. As Described by James Madison & Thomas Jefferson.
f.) The "Original Compact"cannot be altered outside the delegated powers or arrogate any new powers.
g.) Exclusive Privileges Prohibited whether by State, Federal or Other.
h.) "Freedom of Contract" does Not Apply to "Exclusive Privileges" which should Not Exist. The State having NO power to grant such "exclusive privileges", they do not legally exist in any free country. The clear words of the founders establishes that they had no intent of granting or Delegating any such powers to state or federal constitutions. They are therefore VOID and of NO FORCE.

i.) Free Republics are small in area for adequate representation of the local people within them;

Though present Counties can provide far better representation through being granted Statehood than now experienced, which we endorse; For optimum representation of any commonwealth, this area should not be greater than 10 miles square (5 miles square optimum), nor more than a 15 minute drive to the centralized capitol, records and court house. In cases of distinct commonwealths within a "County State" such smaller counties should be established with powers to void unwanted impositions ofCounty State Powers that would be adverse to the will and good of that particular commonwealth.



























 

 

4.) Plain Sense Intention


A very important reminder of these definitions were given us by two of our founders:

1.)Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence and
 
2.) James Madison, Author of the Constitution.

In response to the Federal government attempting to step beyond it's limited delegated powers when it enacted the Alien and Sedition acts, Both of these renown and key Authors reminded the federal government and the president of their mistaken deeds by ratifying in their respective states, The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

Both Resolutions pointed out clearly, that the Federal Government was subservient to the states and limited to the very limited delegated powers specifically defined during the Constitutional Debates.

The Virginia Resolution established a clear definition as to the difference between a Mixed Monarchy and a Republic.

A historical definition which has to do with the reserved powers of  localized representation.

Here James Madison clearly defines that "if the states were combined" into "One Nation" the Republic would "CHANGE" into, a Absolute Monarchyor at best, a Mixed Monarchy by that construction;

AMONARCHY, NOTa Republic.

Here is how James Madison defines this:

Virginia Resolution of 1798
Authors Thomas Jefferson and James Madison:

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support "the government" of the United States in all measures "warranted" by "the former".

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as "resulting" from the "compact", to which the states are parties; as "limited" by the

>>>"PLAIN SENSE and INTENTION"

of the "instrument"constituting the "compact";

as >>>no further valid that they are authorized by the grants"enumerated" in that "compact"; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers,not granted by the said"compact", the states whoare parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, tointerpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which "defines" "them"; and that implications have appeared of a "design" to

expoundcertain > "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 asto 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".


Here then it is clear, that as soon as the federal government began enacting it's own lawsoutside the plain common sense meaning and limitations intended by the Founders in the Constitutional Debates that define the common sense intent of the very limited powers of the Constitution,or attemptsconsolidation of the states into "ONE SOVEREIGNTY" or "ONE NATION",

the United States (Limited Compact / Charter/ Constitution) becomes a  >>>"Mixed" or "Absolute Monarchy"  and >>>Not a Republic.

This is the definition given by the "Authors" of our most prized Documents.
 

 

5.) The Voiding of Acts of Power


The Legislative thereby"Changes" and thereby removes itself from power by the change in direction from which the original compact was created;

Read Also John Locke >>> 211. Regarding the  Dissolution of Power:


This occurs by assuming itself powers in and of itself and not through the authorized limited powers granted to it though the Constitution;

Here, Thomas Jefferson establishes this limitation definition and the point of "Change":



The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
Thomas Jefferson:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their "general government";but that, by a compact under the "style and title"of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes"delegated" to that government "certain definite powers",

"reserving", "each State" to itself, the residuary mass of right to their "own" self-government;

and that >>> "whensoever"the GENERAL GOVERNMENT assumes UNDELEGATED POWERS, its acts are

 >>> "UNAUTHORITATIVE", "VOID", and of "NO FORCE":

that to this compact "each State" "acceded" as a "State", and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party:

that the government "created" by this compact was "not"made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to "itself"; since that would have madeits discretion, and "not"the Constitution,the "measure of its powers";

but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers havingno "common judge", each party has anequal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.


The Federal Government has long attempted to " consolidate the states by "degrees", into "one sovereignty" as warned here by the Authors, (and held from separation) and this is quite evident in its "expounding on "GeneralPhrases" as warned in theVirginia Resolution so by "design""misconstrue" the "plain sense meanings" so to empower itself and invade the powers of the independent states.
 

 

6.) The Federal Government A Separate Exclusive Limited Republic


In the federal government'smarketing attempt to nationalize the pledge of allegiance"One Nation", Under God";

"One Nation" is entirely against the meaning of Republic as defined by the Founders, and also attempts to subvert the true and correct meaning of a "very limited exclusive delegated federal government Republic" ... for which "it" the federal government stands" in full subjugation to the many state republics for which it depends on for it's very existence.

James Madison, within the Constitutional Debates clearly states:


James Madison:

"...An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, whichdeserves to be attended to.

*** If we be dissatisfied with the national government,

 if we "should choose to renounce {415} it",

"this is an additional safeguard to our defence".


>>> A clear indication that it was the intent of the founders that the states were in full control of whether or not the federal government continues;

The right and power of the states to dispose of the federal government if ever it attempted to assume unto itselfany undelegated power.


A federal "Exclusive Limited Powers Republic"  that refers to the 10 miles square of Washington DC as clearly defined in the Constitutional Debates.

A correction to this would be a altercation to "Independent States, United, Under God" With liberty and justice for all".

Which, as a simple pledge, is easy enough to correct.
 

 

7.) Dissolution of the Executive or Legislative


John Locke, who outlines the extent of civil governments clearly establishes that when either:

a.) The Legislative is changed from the purpose for which it was constituted; or

b.)  When the legislative hands itself and the people into the hands of another power;

This occurring when either federal hands itself into foreign jurisdiction and subjugation, or the state hands itself into "non delegated" federal jurisdiction and subjugation,

the legislative "dissolves itself" and "has" removed itself from all authority and all power;

These are also clearly established by John Locke, as an act of war against the people who had constituted the legislative for their protection and under the the limitations of the original compact and ultimate consent of the people themselves.


John Locke on Civil Government:

Chapter 10: Of the Forms of a Commonwealth

John Locke132. THE majority having, as has been showed, upon men's first uniting into society, the whole power of the community naturally in them, may employ all that power in making laws for the community from time to time, and executing those laws by officers of their own appointing, and then theform of the government is a perfect democracy; or else may put the power of making laws into the hands of a few select men, and their heirs or successors, and then it is an oligarchy; or else into the hands of one man, and then it is a monarchy; if to him and his heirs, it is a hereditary monarchy; if to him only for life, but upon his death the power only of nominating a successor, to return to them, an elective monarchy.

And so accordingly of these make compounded and mixed forms of government,  as they think good. And if the legislative power be at first given by the  majority to one or more persons only for their lives, or any limited time,  and then the supreme power to revert to them again, when it is so reverted the community may dispose of it again anew into what hands they please, and so constitute a new form of government; for the form of government depending upon the placing the supreme power, which is the legislative, it being impossible to conceive that an inferior power should prescribe to a superior, or any but the supreme make laws, "according" as the power of making laws "is placed", such is the form of the commonwealth.

John Locke133. By"commonwealth" I must be understood all along to mean not a democracy, or any form of government, butany "independent community" which the Latins signified by the word civitas, to which the word which best answers in our language is "commonwealth," and most properly expresses such a society of men which "community" does not (for there may be subordinatecommunities in a government), and "city" muchless. And therefore, to avoid ambiguity, I crave leave to use the word "commonwealth" in that sense, in which sense I find the word used by King James himself, which I think to be its genuine signification, which, if anybody dislike, I consent with him to change it for a better.


 

8.) Force Without Authority Reinstates the State of War


John Locke 155. It may be demanded here, what if the executive power, being possessed of the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original constitution or the public exigencies require it?

I say, using force upon the people,without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him that does so,

>>> "is" a state of war with the people   ,

who have a right to reinstate their legislativein the"exercise of their power". For having erected a legislative with an intent they should exercise the power of making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it by force.In all states and conditions the true remedy of force without authorityis to oppose force to it. The use of force "without authority"always puts him that uses it into a "state of war" as the "aggressor", and renders him liable to be "treated accordingly".

John Locke 226. Thirdly: I answer, that this power in the people of providing  for their safety anew by a new legislative when their legislators have acted  contrary to their trust by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probable means to hinder it.

For rebellion being an opposition, not to persons,"but authority", which is foundedonly in the constitutions and laws of the government:

THOSE,>>>whoever they be, who, by force, break through,and, by force, justify their "violation of them",

 are truly and properly"rebels". For when men, by entering into society and civil government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves,

THOSEwho set up force "again" in opposition to "the" laws, do "rebellare"

-- that is, bring back again the STATE OF WAR, and are properly rebels,

which THEY"whoare in power",  by the>>>"PRETENCE" they have to "authority",

the temptation of forcetheyhave in their hands,

and the flattery of thoseabout them beinglikeliest to do, the proper way to prevent the evil is to
 

>>>>>>>>>>> "SHOW THEM"  the DANGER and INJUSTICE of it

"who are" under the "greatest temptation to run into it".

(APP Note: This"showing them" was in fact done by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky ResolutionsWARNING OF BLOODSHED - See Kentucky Resolution, 8th Section: "... that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish "newcalumnies" against republican government")


John Locke#227: In both the forementioned cases, when either the >>>legislative is changed, or the

>>>legislators act contrary to the >>> end for which they were constituted,

"those who are" guilty are guilty of rebellion.

For if any oneby force takes away theestablished legislative of any society, and the laws by them made,

>>>pursuant to their trust,

he thereby takes away the "umpirage" which every one had "consented" to for a peaceable decision of all their controversies,

and a "bar" to the "state of war" amongst them.


(APP Note:Remember he is talking about the "ORIGINAL COMPACT" for which the legislative was  >>>"FIRST INSTITUTED"  ).


"...They who remove or change the legislative take away this decisive power, which nobody can have but by the appointment and "consent" of the people, and so destroying the "authority" which the people did, and nobody else can, set up, and introducing a power which the people hath >>>"not authorized",

actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority;

and thus by removing the legislative established by the society, in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their own will, they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to thestate of war.

And if those, who by forcetake away the legislative, are rebels,

the >>> "LEGISLATORS  themselves", as has been shown, can be >>>>>>>>"NO LESS esteemed so",

when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and propertiesshall by force invade and endeavour to "take them away";

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

(APP Note: This is an important distinction)

John Locke228. Butif they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, contrary to the trust put in them, and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "peace" of the world';

>>> they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates,

 because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed.

If any mischief come in such cases, >>> it is NOT to be charged upon him who defends his own right,

>>>but "on HIM" that "INVADES his neighbour's".



(***>>>>>>>IMPORTANTAPP Note: This can be noted where the federal government is attempting to pass environmental bills to condemn andINVADE private and state land near federal reserves/ monuments and expand their borders;"Senate Bill S22"

This is a "defined act of tyranny" soold, it can be found in theMagna Carta#47. "All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested.  River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly". This was because former tyrants began planting forests to encroach on property owned by others, then claim because it was "forest" the land belonged to them. The King corrected the intrusion with this Article #47. ) History and Tyranny repeating itself!

Locke Continued: "If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for peace sake to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be consideredwhat kind of a peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,

and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors.

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

Polyphemus's den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace.

Such a government wherein Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do butquietly to suffer themselves to be devoured. And no doubt Ulysses, who was a prudent man, preached up passive obedience, and exhorted them to a quiet submission by representing to them of what concernment peace was to mankind, and by showing [what] inconveniencies might happen if they should offer to resist Polyphemus, who had now the power over them.


John Locke229. The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power,and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation, of the >>>properties of their people?


John Locke230. Nor let any one say that mischief can arise from hence as often as it shall please a busy head or turbulent spirit to desire the alteration of the government. It is true such men may stir whenever they please, but it will be only to their own just ruin and perdition. For till the mischief be grown general,

and the >>> ill "designs"of the rulers become "visible", or their attempts sensible to the greater part,the people, who are "more disposed to suffer than right themselves by resistance", are not apt to stir.

(APP Note: Again Review the Declaration of Independence to see these exact words and or "meaning")

The examples of particular injustice or oppression of here and there an unfortunate man moves them not. But if they universally have a persuasion grounded upon manifest evidence that designs are carrying on against their liberties, and the general course and tendency of things cannot but give them strong suspicions of the evil intention of their governors, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence) who is to be blamed for it?

Who can help it if>>>THEY, who might avoid it,BRING THEMSELVES into this suspicion?

Are the people to be blamed if they have the sense of rational creatures, and can think of things no otherwise than as they find and feel them? And is it not rather their fault who put things in such a posture that they would not have them thought as they are? I grant that the pride, ambition, and turbulency of private men have sometimes caused great disorders in commonwealths, and factions have been fatal to states and kingdoms. But whether the mischief hath oftener begun in the people's wantonness, and a desire to cast off the lawful authority of their rulers, or in the rulers' insolence and endeavours to get and exercise an arbitrary power over their people, whether oppression or disobedience gave the first rise to the disorder, I leave it to impartial history to determine. This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and

>>>lays thefoundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any "JUST" government,

he is >>> guilty of the greatest crime I think a man is capable of,

being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country; and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be >>> treated accordingly.


John Locke231. Thatsubjects or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people may be resisted with force is agreed on all hands;

but that magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted, hath of late been denied; as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law had thereby a power to break those laws by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren;

whereas their offence is thereby the >>> GREATER  , both as being ungrateful for the greater share they have by the law, and breaking also that trust which is put into their hands by their brethren.


John Locke232. Whosoever uses force >>> without "right"

-- as every one does in society who does it without law -- (APP Note: Locke establishes "Law" needs "Authority" to be law - otherwise it is not law and void)puts himself into a "state of war" with those against whom he so uses it, and in "that state" "all former ties are canceled", "all other rights cease", and "every" "ONE" has a "right" to defend "himself", and to"RESIST" "the aggressor".

This is so evident that Barclay himself -- that great assertor of the power and sacredness of kings -- is forced to confess that it is lawful for the people, in some cases, to resist their king, and that, too, in a chapter wherein he pretends to show that the Divine law shuts up the people from all manner of rebellion. Whereby it is evident, even by his own doctrine, that since they may, in some cases, resist, all resisting of princes is not rebellion.

His words are these: "..."

In English thus:

John Locke233. (Reciting Barclay:) "But if any one should ask: Must the people, then, always lay themselves open to the cruelty and rage of tyranny -- must they see their cities pillaged and laid in ashes, their wives and children exposed to the tyrant's lust and fury, and themselves and families reduced by their king to ruin and all the miseries of want and oppression, and yet sit still -- must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which Nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of Nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself; but to revenge themselves upon him must, by no means, be allowed them, it being not agreeable to that law. Wherefore, if the king shall show an hatred, not only to some particular persons, but sets himself against the body of the commonwealth, whereof he is the head, and shall, with intolerable ill-usage, cruelly tyrannise over the whole, or a considerable part of the people; in this case the people  have a right to resist and defend themselves from injury; but it must be with this caution, that they only defend themselves, but do not attack their prince. They may repair the damages received, but must not, for any provocation, exceed the bounds of due reverence and respect. They may repulse the present attempt, but must not revenge past violences. For it is natural for us to defend life and limb, but that an inferior should punish a superior is against nature.(APP Note: This is opposed by "All men are created equal" as the true law of nature) The mischief which is designed them the people may prevent before it be done, but, when it is done, they must not revenge it on the king, though author of the villany. This, therefore, is the privilege of the people in general above what any private person hath: That particular men are allowed, by our adversaries themselves (Buchanan only excepted), to have no other remedy but patience; but the body of the people may, with respect, resist intolerable tyranny, for when it is but moderate they ought to endure it. (end Barclay)"

John Locke234. (John Locke): Thus far that great advocate of monarchical power  allows of resistance.

John Locke235. It is true, he has annexed two limitations to it, >>> to nopurpose:  

First. He says it must be with reverence.

Secondly. It must be without retribution or punishment; and the reason he gives is, "because an inferior cannot punish a superior."

First. How to resist force without striking again, or how to strike with reverence, will need some skill to make intelligible. He that shall oppose an assault only with a shield to receive the blows, or in any more respectful posture, without a sword in his hand to abate the confidence and force of the assailant, will quickly be at an end of his resistance, and will find such a defence serve only to draw on himself the worse usage.

 This is as >>>ridiculous a way of resisting as "Juvenal" thought it of fighting: Ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum. And the success of the combat will be unavoidably the same he there describes it:

Libertas pauperis haec est;
Pulsatus rogat, et pugnis concisus, adorat,
Ut liceat paucis cum dentibus inde reverti.

This will always be the event of such an imaginary resistance,where men may not strike again.

He, therefore, who may resist


>>>must be ALLOWED to strike.


And then let our author (APP Note: God), or "anybody else", join a knock on the head or a cut on the face with as much reverence and respect as he thinks fit.


He that can reconcile blows andreverence may, for aught I know, deserve for his painsa civil, respectful cudgelling wherever he can meet with it.


Secondly. As to his second -- "An inferior cannot punish a superior" --

that is true, generally speaking, whilst he is his superior.

But to resist force with force, being the "state of war" that levels the parties,"cancels" all former relation of reverence, respect, and superiority;

and then the odds that remains is -- that he who opposes the unjust aggressor has this superiority over him, that he has a "right", when he prevails, to punish the offender, both for the breach of the peace and all the evils that followed upon it. Barclay, therefore, in another place, more coherently to himself, denies it to be lawful to resist a king in any case.

But he there assigns two cases whereby a king may >>>"UNKING"himself.

His words are:
"...".
John Locke236. "..." -- Barclay, Contra Monarchomachos, I. iii., c. 16.

Which may be thus Englished:

John Locke237.(Reciting Barclay:) "What, then, can there no case happen wherein the people may of right, and by their own authority, help themselves, take arms, and set upon their king, imperiously domineering over them?

None at all whilst he remains a king.

'Honour the king,' and 'he that resists the power, resists the ordinance of God,' are Divine oracles that will never permit it.

The people, therefore, can never come by a power over him

>>>unless he does something that makes him >>> cease to be a king;

for then he divests himself of his crown and dignity, and returns to the "state of a private man",

and the people become free and "superior";

the power which they had in the interregnum, before they crowned him king,>>>devolving to them again.

But there are but few miscarriages which bring the matter to this state. After considering it well on all sides, I can find but two.

Two cases there are, I say, whereby a king, ipso facto, becomesno king, and loses all power and regal authority over his people, which are also taken notice of by Winzerus.


The first is, if he endeavour to overturn the government -- that is, if he have a purpose and design toruin the kingdom and commonwealth, as it is recorded of Nero that he resolved to cut off the senate and people of Rome, lay the city waste with fire and sword, and then remove to some other place; and of Caligula, that he openly declared that he would be no longer a head to the people or senate, and that he had it in his thoughts to cut off the worthiest men of both ranks, and then retire to Alexandria; and he wished that the people had but one neck that he might dispatch them all at a blow. Such designs as these, when any king harbours in his thoughts, and seriously promotes, he immediately gives up all care and thought of the commonwealth, and, consequently, forfeits the power of governing his subjects, as a master does the dominion over his slaves whom he hath abandoned.


>>>>John Locke 238."The other case is, when a king makes himself the"dependent of another",

and subjects his kingdom, which his ancestors left him, and the people put free into his hands,

>>>>>>>>>>>to the dominion of another.


For however, perhaps, it may not be his intention to prejudice the people, yet because he has hereby lost the principal part of regal dignity -- viz., to be next and immediately under God, supreme in his kingdom; and also because he >>> betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved,

into the power and dominion of a >>> "foreign nation".

By this, as it were, alienationof his kingdom,he himself loses the power he had in it before,

>>> without transferring any the "least right" to those on "whom he would have bestowed it";

and so by this act sets the people free, and leaves them at their own disposal. One example of this is to be found in the Scotch annals."

APP Note: Relate this to our federal national government who places its people into the hands of a world government, organization or PRIVATE federal bank or United Nations, or under the control of foreign treaties -

Then Review the APP news letter on the Constitutional Debates, what must occur, and what are the protections of the states, with regard to when a national government becomes disingenuous to its "Original Compact".


 

9.) When Authority Ceases


John Locke239. (John Locke:) In these cases Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to allow that a kingmay be resisted, and ceases to be a king. That is in short -- not to multiply cases -- in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king, and may be resisted: for wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority.

( APP Note: Relate this to the founder's statements in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, it is identical in meaning)


And these two cases that he instances differ little from those above mentioned, to be destructive to governments, only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows, and that is thebreach of trust in

>>>not preservingthe form of government >>> agreed on,

and in >>> not intending the end of government itself,

>>> which is the public good and preservation of >>> property.


When a king has dethroned "himself", and put himself in a state of war with his people,

what shall hinder them from prosecuting him who is no king, as they wouldany other man, who has put himself into a state of war with them, Barclay, and those of his opinion, would do well to tell us. Bilson, a bishop of our Church, and a great stickler for the power and prerogative of princes, does, if I mistake not, in his treatise of "Christian Subjection," acknowledge that princes may forfeit their power and their title to the obedience of their subjects; and if there needed authority in a case where reason is so plain, I could send my reader to Bracton, Fortescue, and the author of the "Mirror," and others, writers that cannot be suspected to be ignorant of our government, or enemies to it.

But I thoughtHooker alonemight be enough to satisfy those men who, relying on him for their ecclesiastical polity, are by a strange fate carriedto deny those principles upon which he builds it.

Whether they are herein made the tools of cunninger workmen, to pull down their own fabric, they were best look.

This I am sure, their civil policy is so new, so dangerous, and so destructive  to both rulers and people, that as former ages never could bear the broaching  of it, so it may be hoped those to come, redeemed from the impositions of these Egyptian under-taskmasters, will abhor the memory of such servile flatterers, who, whilst it seemed to serve their turn, resolved all government into absolute tyranny, and would have all men born to what their mean souls fitted them -- slavery.
 

 

10.) Who shall Judge


John Locke #240. Here it is like the common question will be made:

Who shall be judge whether the prince or LEGISLATIVEact contrary to their trust?

This, perhaps, ill-affected and factious men may spread amongst the people, when the prince only makes use of his due prerogative.

To this I reply,

>>>The "PEOPLE" shall be judge;

for who shall be judge whether his trustee or deputy acts well and according to the trust reposed in him,

but he who deputes him and must, by having deputed him, have still a power to discard him when he fails in his trust?

If this be reasonable in particular cases of private men,

>>>why should it be otherwise in that of the greatest moment, where the welfare  of millions is concerned and also where the evil, if not prevented, is greater,  and the redress very difficult, dear, and dangerous?


241. But, farther, this question,Who shall be judge?

cannot mean that there is no judge at all.

For where there is no judicature on earth to decide controversies amongst men, God in heaven is judge. He alone, it is true, is judge of the right.

But every man is judge for himself, as in all other cases so in this, whether another hath put himself into a state of war with him,

and whether he should appeal to the supreme judge, as Jephtha did.

(APP Note: See this "Appeal" in the Declaration of Independence)


John Locke242. If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people in a matter where the law is silent or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, I should think the proper umpire in such a case should be the body of the people. For in such cases where the prince hath a trust reposed in him, and is dispensed from the common, ordinary rules of the law, there, if any menfind themselves aggrieved, and think the prince acts contrary to, or beyond that trust, who so proper to judge as the body of the people (whoat first lodged that trust in him) how far they meant it should extend? But if the prince, or whoever they be in the administration, decline that way of determination,the appeal then lies nowhere but to Heaven.

Force between either persons who have no known superior on earth or, which permits no appeal to a judge on earth, being properly a state of war, wherein the appeal lies only to heaven;

and in that state the injured party must

>>> judge for himself when he will think fit to make use of that appeal and put himself upon it.


John Locke243. To conclude. The power that every individual gave the society when he entered into it can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community;

because without this there can be no community -- no commonwealth, which is contrary to the "original agreement";

so also when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men, to continue in them and their successors, with direction and authority for providing such successors, the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts: because, having provided a legislative with power to continue for ever, they have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it.

>>>But if they have "set limits" to the duration of their legislative,

and made this"supreme power"in any personor assemblyonly "temporary";

(APP Note: i.e. "LIMITED" "DELEGATED" powers granted to the federal legislature.)


"or else" when, by the "miscarriages" of "those in authority", >>> it is "forfeited";

(APP Note: i.e. "When the federal government acts outside those "LIMITED" "DELEGATED" powers.)
 

upon theforfeiture of their rulers, or at the determination of the time set,

it reverts to the society, and "the people" have >>> "a RIGHT to act as SUPREME",

and continue the legislative in themselves  (APP Note: States and or communities)

or place it in a new form, or new hands, as they think good."(See this in the Declaration of Independence)


APP: This establishment is so clearly defined in the Constitutional Debates and the Constitution as the intent of the Founders, there is no other definition.

To ignore the Founder's and Authors written intent, is to rightly and justly  negate the entire authority of the document, the federal government and with  it, its legislative, executive and judicial powers.

See the Constitutional Debates.

 


11.) What Now is Necessary
To Return to being Free and Independent Republics?

A.) Transfer all Federal and State lands within any state to the Counties;
B.) Remove the Department of the Interior, Homeland Security, Bureau of Land Management and Federal Reserve;
C.) As defined in the Constitutional Debates, All Federal Policing is to be limited to the 10 miles square of Washington DC for the limited purpose to protect legislation practices and persons in that particular place;  FBI, CIA, ATF, and all other federal police and regulatory forces, Removed from the states;
D.) The States auction to individuals all lands and buildings that are not forts or State military bases;
E.) Federal forts were only authorized until lands came under statehood then states had operation and control of all land and forts within the state's  territory. States to take full control. Any standing military or national  guard within the borders of any state to be under full control of the state;
F.) Remove all Federal, State and County, "Departments", laws, mandates, labor or organizations that have not been expressly delegated by the original compact of the Constitution; Any retained offices assumed by the counties under annual consent of the people of each county, shall dictate their existence, hiring, firing, wage and positions. (See: Rights of Colonists - Determiner of wages)
G.) Follow the Intent of the Founders as laid out in the Constitutional Debates
H.)Remove all state born exclusive privileges; Corporations, Unions, Tax exempt or Tax supported special interests, undelegated federal bureaucracies (not delegated in the original compact-Constitutional Debates-VA Declaration Rights)
I.) Statehood Granted to all Counties within the United States assuming all powers and independence of a free and independent state. All former state and or federal land to be transferred to full ownership of the people of the State County.

 

 12.) Referenced Constitutional Debate Quotes
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]


The below exerts are that which relate to the above statements,

To view within the full day debate, See our 2006 News Letter where the Debate is printed in full.

-----------------


Patrick Henry:  "...I am still persuaded that the power of calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union,is dangerous. ..."

James Madison:"...The Constitution does >>> "NOT SAY" that a "standing army" shall be called out to "execute the laws".

 >>>>>>>Is not this a MORE PROPER way?"

(APP: Notice the Non-Delegation "BY EXCLUSION"; If it is not there, the Federal Government has NO power or authority)


Mr. JOHN MARSHALL asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments  had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were,  he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken.

The state governments"did not derive their powers" from the "general government"(APP: federal government);

but "each" governmentderived its powers from"the people",

and "each" was to act according to the powers given it.

Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away?

For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

But the power given to the states by the people is "not taken away"; for the Constitution"does not say so". In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also".

The power of legislating given them within the"ten miles square">>>is"exclusive"of the states, because it is expressed to be "exclusive".

The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here.

It rests, therefore, with "THE STATES".

To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption. Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because Congress can interpose!

Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast?

I will show {420} that there"could not"be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.

All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.

>>>This power is "not included" in the restrictions in that section.

But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

When invaded, they "can" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger".

This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it "necessary."

 

James Madison: "...There is a powerful check in that paper.

The state governmentsare to govern the militia when not called forth for general national purposes; and Congress is to govern such part only as may be in the actual service of the Union. Nothing can be more certain and positive than this. It expressly empowers Congress to govern them when in the service of the United States.

It is, then, "clear" that the states govern them "when they are not"."


George Mason: Now, sir, if an attempt should be made to establish tyranny over the people, here are ten miles square where the greatest offender may meet protection. If any of their officers, or creatures, should attempt to oppress the people, or should actually perpetrate the blackest deed, he has nothing to do but get into the ten miles square.Why was this dangerous power given? Felons may receive an asylum there and in {432} their strongholds. Gentlemen have said that it was dangerous to argue against possible abuse, because there could be no power delegated but might be abused.

It is an incontrovertible axiom, that, when the dangers that may arise from the abuse are greater than the benefits that may result from the use, "the power ought to be withheld".

I do not conceive that this power is at all necessary, though capable of being greatly abused.

We are told by the honorable gentleman that Holland has its Hague. I confess I am at a loss to know what inference he could draw from that observation.  This is the place where the deputies of the United Provinces meet to transact  the public business. But I do not recollect that they have any exclusive jurisdiction whatever in that place, but are subject to the laws of the province in which the Hague is. To what purpose the gentleman mentioned that Holland has its Hague, I cannot see.


Mr. MASON "...then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive power, as far as respected

the POLICE and good governmentof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "PLACE";

but he would give them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"NO MORE", because he thought it unnecessary. He was very willing to give them, in this as well as in all other cases, those powers which he thought indispensably necessary.


Mr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary to say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me ask whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers. I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a SMALL DISTRICT, which CANNOT EXCEED ten miles square, and MAY "NOT be more than one mile", will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the

>>> LAST THING that would enter into the mind of "any man" to grant >>>exclusive advantages,

in a >>> VERY CITCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT, to the prejudice of the community >>> at large.

We make suppositions, and afterwards deduce conclusions from them, as if they were established axioms. But, after all, bring home this question to ourselves. Is it probable that the members from Georgia, New Hampshire, will concur to sacrifice the privileges of their friends? I believe that, whatever state may become the seat of the general {433} government, it will become the object of the jealousy and envy of the other states. 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".

APP NOTE: >>> "READ THAT AGAIN !!!"

"How could the general government be guarded from the undue influence of particular states, or from insults, without such exclusive power? If it were at the pleasure of a particular state to control the session and deliberations of Congress, would they be secure from insults, or the influence of such state? If this commonwealth depended, for the freedom of deliberation, on the laws of any state where it might be necessary to sit, would it not be liable to attacks of that nature (and with more indignity) which have been already offered to Congress? With respect to the government of Holland, I believe the States General have no jurisdiction over the Hague; but I have heard that mentioned as a circumstance which gave undue influence to Holland over the rest. We must limit our apprehensions to certain degrees of probability. The evils which they urge must result from this clause are extremely improbable; nay, almost impossible.


Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, one answer which has been given is, the improbability of the evil that it will never be attempted, and that it is almost impossible.This will not satisfy us, when we consider the great attachments men have to a great and"magnificentcapital". It would be the interest of the citizens of "that" district(APP: Washington DC)to "aggrandize"themselves by "every possible means" in their power,to the "great injury of the other states". (APP: What a Remarkable statement)

If we travel all over the world, we shall find that people have "aggrandized"their own capitals. Look at Russia and Prussia. Every step has been taken to aggrandize their capitals.In what light are we to consider the ten miles square? It is not to be a fourteenth state. The inhabitants will in no respect whatever be amenable to the laws of any state. A clause in the 4th article, highly extolled for its wisdom, will be rendered nugatory by thisexclusive legislation. This clause runs thus: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such {434} service or labor, but shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due." Unless you consider the ten miles square as a state, persons bound to labor, who shall escape thither, will not be given up; for they are only to be delivered up after they shall have escaped into a state. As my honorable friend mentioned, felons, who shall have fled from justice to the ten miles square, cannot be apprehended. The executive of a state Is to apply to that of another for the delivery of a felon. He cannot apply to the ten miles square. It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government; but they never had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases. The power of regulating the police and good government"of it"will secure Congress against insults.***What originated the idea of the exclusive legislation was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, it is supposed, they left the state.

It is answered that the consent of the "state"must be required, or elsethey cannot have such a district, or"places "for the erecting of FORTS"

(APP NOTE: FORTS IN AREAS NOT YET IN STATEHOOD; THAT IS THE ONLY PURPOSE OFANY CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE WASHINGTON DC;  AT THE TIME OF ANY STATEHOOD, THE STATE WAS TO ASSUME CONTROL OF THOSE and then PROVIDE for thier OWN DEFENSE; ASSISTANCE FROM NATIONAL AFTER THAT WITHIN THE STATE, WOULD ONLY BE AT THE APPLICATION AND REQUEST OF THE STATE).

Now Relate that requirement of "State's Consent" to "Fort Sumter".

"&c. But how much is already given them! Look at the great country to the north-west of the Ohio, extending to and commanding the lakes.

Look at the other end of the Ohio, towards South Carolina, extending to the Mississippi. See what these, in process of time, may amount to. They may grant exclusive privileges to any particular part of which they have the possession. But it may be observed that those extensive countries will be formed into independent states, and that their consent will be necessary.To this I answer, that they may still grant such privileges as, in that country, are already granted to Congress by the states. The grants of  Virginia, South Carolina, and other states, will be subservient to Congress in this respect. Of course, it results from the whole,that requiring the "CONSENT" of the states will be >>>>>>>no guard against this abuse of power.

[A desultory conversation ensued.]

Mr. NICHOLAS insisted that as the state, within which theten miles square might be, could prescribe the terms on which Congress should hold it, no danger could arise, as no state would consent to injure itself: there was the same {435} security with respect to the places purchased for the >>>erection of forts, magazines, &c.; and as to the "territory" of the United States, the power of Congress only extended to make needful rules and regulations concerning it, without prejudicing the claim of any particular state, the right of territory not being given up; that the grant of those lands to the United Stateswas for the general benefit of all the states, and >not to be perverted to their prejudice >; that, consequently, whether that country were formed into new states or not, the danger apprehended could not take place; that the seat of government was to be still a part of "the state", and, as to general regulations, was to be considered as such.


Mr. HENRY entertained strong suspicions that great dangers must result from the clause under consideration. They were not removed, but rather confirmed, by the remarks of the honorable gentleman, in saying that it was extremely improbable that the members from New Hampshire and Georgia would go and legislate exclusively for the ten miles square. If it was so improbable, why ask the power?Why demand a power which was not to be exercised? Compare this power, says he, with the next clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary to carry their laws into execution. By this they have a right to passany law that may facilitate the execution of their acts.

American Patriot Party . CC and  Oregon Patriot Party . Com Copyright 2006 Richard Taylor