|
American
Patriot Party
National Year End
News Letter -
December 2009
State
Born Exclusive
Privileges and Freedom
of Contracts
Corporations
(state granted
privilege of CARTEL);
Unions,
Tax
supported special
interests,
undelegated state
and federal
bureaucracies
and Zoning
(granting privileges
between citizens); are
all
state born exclusive
privileges.
The
importance of ACTUAL
single INDIVIDUAL
owning title
of property is an
important feature to
freedom; Collective
title in property
establishes varying
degrees of
socialism.
To
illustrate one
example, 5 persons
each owning their own
gas station
under separate
titles, decide
together to establish
the price of gas at
$5.00 a gallon;
All
5 owners would be
thrown in jail for
the CRIME of PRICE
FIXING.
Now
5 other people go to
the state and become a
corporation, they buy
5 gas stations and
decide together at a
table to charge $5.00
a gallon at each
gas station; Because
they are
FICTITIOUSLY
considered an
INDIVIDUAL ,
even though they can
number in the
thousands,they
are granted refuge
from the price
fixing laws.
Allowing"Exclusive
Privileges" to "exist"
and wondering why
freedom isn't
working; is the
same as Allowing a
hole in the Titanic
and then wondering
why it no longer
floats;
Neither
belongs,
as the correct
operation of both rely
on the fact that "Exclusive
Privileges" and "the
hole" do not exist.
Directory
and Subjects Covered:
Left
Column (WIDE
PAGE - Scroll Down v )
Directory
Note
on Property &
Title
Founders
Starting Quotes on
the Subject of
"Exclusive
Privileges"
American
Patriot Party Letter
Dependency
on Private
Collectives, No
different than
Dependency upon
Societal Socialism
Free
Trade Affected
Exclusive
Privileges, Free
Trade and Economics
Civil
Law VS Common Law
ENTERS:
"EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES
Directory and Subjects
Covered
1.) The
Basic Foundations of
Freedom and Free
Society's Creation
under "ORIGINAL
COMPACT(S)"
Constitutional
Common Law
Republics VS
"PRIVILEGES" and
"CONTRACTS"
A.)
The Corruption by
Exclusive Privileges
and Contracts
B.)
Historical Indicators
of Exclusive
Privileges
C.)
The Visible Indicators
D.)
The Warning
E.)
No Regulation That May
Effect The Citizens Of
The Union At Large
F.)
No Excuse For Allowing
That Which Should Not
Even Exist
G.)
Limitation of
Contracts
H.)
The Original Compact
I.)
Compacts Cannot Change
- Including The
Constitution
J.)
No New Forms of
Taxation or
Regulations
K.)
Governments Cannot
Create Their Own
Authority
L.)
Unlimited Arbitrary
Authority Prohibited
From Compacts
M.)
Dissolution of
Government,
Reinstituting The
State of War and
Rebellion
2.) Understanding
that "Freedom of
Contract" Does NOT
Apply to "Exclusive
Privileges"
A.)
Actual And Fictitious
Individuals
B.)
Unconstitutional Laws
Can Never Set
Precedence
C.)
Precedent and
Prerogative; New
Powers and Laws
Prohibited - Quotes
and history presented.
a.) Founders Stepping
from Constitution.
b.) Bad purposes -
Alien and Sedition
Acts
c.) Good purposes -
Louisiana Purchase
d.) Difference between
the two - Precedent
and Prerogative.
e.) Good Princes -
John Locke Quotes
f.) NO good Act ever a
MEANS to set a
"PRECEDENT" for a
"PREROGATIVE" or
"Expansion of POWER"
D.)
Civil Case Law Limited
by Common Law
E.)
Common Law Still
Supreme
F.)
Condemnation And
Imminent Domain Are
Void
G.)
Taking can NEVER be
Assumed to be a Power
of CONDEMNATION
a.) TEMPORARY USE for
the PROTECTION of
PROPERTY
b.) Federal 10 mile
LIMITATION
c.) Not an excuse to
use prerogative
against private
property
d.) Not for used to
grant or arrogate
powers or privileges,
foreign or domestic,
over private property
e.) Not to be used
against a person's
"CONSENT";
f.) Samuel Adams
Quote: Representatives
Cannot justly take
from any man, any part
of his property
without a person's
Consent.
g.) NO NEW GRANT of
POWER - Take and
Compensation LIMITED
to Washington DC -
Ratifying Convention
George Nicholas and
Edmund Pendleton
Quotes
h.) First Complaints
of separation
regarding CONSENT -
Patrick Henry and
James Madison Quotes
i.) Common Law
Principles a "RETAINED
RIGHT"
j.) Federal government
can make NO LAW that
MAY EFFECT the
Citizens of the UNION
AT LARGE. Edmund
Pendleton Quote.
k.) Property cannot be
taken from people that
have committed crimes
or given to others -
CONSTITUTION: Article
I, Section 9: "....No
Bill of Attainder or
ex post facto Law
shall be passed.
l.) Authority to be
authority is limited
to the laws
established in the
Original Compact.
Pretense of Authority
prohibited.
3.) "True
Free Trade" Cannot
Exist with the
Existence of State
Born Monopolies and
Cartels; i.e.
PRIVATIZED SOCIALISM
4.) Effects
of "State Born"
"Monopoly and
Cartels" on
True Free Trade and
Independent Business
(GRAPH)
5.) Effects
of "Privatized
Governments", - i.e.
"Private State Born
Exclusive Privileged
Collectives", "Are"
"Privatized
Socialism"
6.) The
Differences Between
Privately Owned
Companies, and
Corporations.
A.)
Personal ownership and
responsibility
B.)
"Limited Liability"
C.)
"Debt Liability
Limitations"
D.)
national and local
debt liability upon
citizens
E.)
Sanctity of Property
being apart from Man's
Employ, Service or
Libel Actions
F.)
Exclusive Privileges
in light of Unions and
Corporations
G.)
The "Union excuse"
however created
another problem -
Maximum Wages
7.) WAGES
and REASON
A.) The Principle
B.)
The Subjects
a.) government
salaries
b.) private
salaries;
c.) and who is in
control of the amount
that is paid
C.)
The Corrupting Factor
of Allowing Exclusive
Privileges
D.)
Wage and Contracts
Argument
a.) Corporations -
Minimum Wage too High
b.) Unions - Minimum
Wage too Low
c.) Special Interests
using both excuses.
E.)
Applying Reason of the
Founders and Common
Law
a.) Consensual Minimum
Wages
b.) Limit Maximum
Wages
c.) Limits to prevent
"financial slavery";
and limit government
servitude to
"Consensual" wages.
d.) Local Powers to
determine Local
Salaries
e.) Remove
"Prevailing" wages in
Corporate contracts
and Union wages.
f.) Establish local
taxes as the source
for all government
salaries taking place
in that county.
g.) Visitation
Salaries limited to
salaries of the county
visited;
h.) Procedure of this
for out of area
government employees.
i.) Includes federal
government and federal
bureaucrats
j.) Removal of
all Union and
Union Determined
Salaries
k.) Quote "Governors
have no right to Seek
what they Please"....
Or Else become
"Despots and Tyrants".
8.) MAXIMUM
WAGES are a product
of a Corrupted
Government
A.)
Governors "Seek what
they please"
B.)
Unions "Seek what they
please"
C.)
Exclusive Privilege of
"Seeking what they
please"
D.)
Salaries and wages
"not determined by
public vote"
E.)
Federal government
exceeding it's
physical
constitutionally
limited boundaries.
F.)
Private Contractors
using Government
Contracts through
LOBBYING to "Seek what
they please"
G.)
Need for setting
limits
H.)
Setting limits for all
servitude positions.
9.) MINIMUM
WAGE when Reasonable
and Consented by a
"LOCAL" Society, is
a Necessary and
Rightful Remedy to
Curtail "Financial
Slavery"
A.)
Consensual public
approval for MINIMUM
wages
B.)
Relation to Common Law
- John Locke
C.)
Relation to Rights of
the Colonists and
"Reasonable" Wages
D.)
Averting the form of
Financial Slavery
caused by Confidence
Artistry and Usury.
10.) Exclusive
Privileges Corrupt
the Term Free Market
and Free Trade
11.) ZONING
- a Government State
Born Exclusive
Privilege Between
Citizens
A.)
Exclusive Privileges
"Between Citizens"
B.)
Population Privilege,
a Product of Zoning
and a Vacuum of Power
C.)
Water, the Final Abuse
of Power by the
Practice of Zoning
12.)
In a Completely Free
Society Without
Property or Business
Limitations and
Exclusive Privileges
A.) No Zoning
B.) No Sweeping
Environmental Laws
C.) No Arbitrary Laws
and the Freedom to
Build
D.) Prohibit
government inroads
upon private property
E.) No Government
EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES
F.) No Arbitrary
Taxation
G.) Conclusion
13.) Death
as Nature's
Competition and
Distribution of
Wealth VS
Corporations,
Unions,
Collectives and
Government "Land
Trusts" Exceeding
the Term
14.) Effects
of State Born
Monopoly and Cartels
on Water and Land
Ownership
***Limited
"Compensation Clause"
Expanded and Arrogated
into a "Condemnation
Clause"
15.) ARBITRARY,
UNENUMERATED,
UNLIMITED, SET
PERCENTAGE TAXES ARE
THE CATALYST OF
EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES
AND CORRUPTION
16.) Effects
of Exclusive
Privileges on
Corrupting
Elections; and also
Allowing Foreign
Control of our Laws
A.) States Grant
Exclusive privileges
to POLITICAL PARTIES
B.) Private
Governments -
CORPORATIONS
C.) Collective powers
create inroads by
FOREIGN INTERESTS
D.) Lobbyists Stack
Legislatures
E.) Executive
Arbitrary Law - A
Dissolution of
Government
--------------------
Right
Column (WIDE
PAGE - Scroll Right,
Up then Down >)
Patrick
Henry, James Madison
and George Nicholas
Quotes on Exclusive
Privileges.
17.) The
Act of Legislating
Financial Slavery
and the Similarity
to FOREIGN CONQUEST
18.) Elements
of Financial Slavery
by Taxation
19.) When
a Contract is
Considered Slavery
20.) Contracts
that establish
FINANCIAL SLAVERY
are an "Exclusive
Privilege"; i.e.
USURY
A.)
Debt and Credit
Slavery and Corruption
a.) Convenience
"COMPANY STORE"
b.) Convenience
"FARM LABOR STORES"
B.)
UNDELEGATED
UNENUMERATED ARBITRARY
UNCONSENSUAL TAXATION
C.)
Credit Cards -
CONTRACT combination
of:
a.) Usury in interest
b.) Practice of
"Deceptive
Convenience" to
Cultivate "Financial
Indenture" (slavery)
of citizens to banks.
D.)
Teaching children
against borrowing
should be a regular
weekly curriculum in
schools. Repetition
being the best teacher
21.) Crime
and Contracts
A.)
Usury
B.)
Confidence Artistry
C.)
Cartel
D.)
Monopoly
22.) Capitalism
VS Liberalism
Deception
23.) "Exclusive
Privileges" Granted
of Arms and
Protection
24.) Free
Trade and Borders
25.) Nationalism
VS True Patriotism
26.) Monopoly
and Cartel Laws
A.)
Monopoly of Human
Labor.
B.)
Prevention of Land
Monopolies,
C.)
Localized Monopoly
Laws to Free up
Government Land to
Individuals and
Private Title;
D.)
Limiting Collectivism
E.)
Addressing Principles
of Natural Law - See
Locke on "so long as
there is enough"
F.)
Future Exploration
27.) "Exclusive
Privileges" Found in
Exploration and
Development of Oil,
Gas, and Minerals
and Refinement.
A.)
Manipulation of laws
and Legislation,
B.)
CARA Bill,
C.)
Get out and Go Act
D.)
Omnibus Bill
28.) Zoning
and Other
Restrictions on
Private Lands for
Drilling Creating
"Exclusive
Privileges"
29.) People
Enslaving Themselves
Through Granting
"Exclusive
Privileges"
A.)
International foreign
ownership of local
properties through
holdership of stocks.
An allowance that
removes land ownership
from a country's own
citizenry and or
subjects land and
people to foreign
interests.
B.) Establishing
local dependency on
foreign people and
companies and those
effects upon local
legislatives
C.)
State Sponsored
Private Cartels
D.)
Federal Lands limited
by "Original Compact"
(i.e. Constitution) to
10 miles square
E.)
National and
international
manipulation through
undelegated powers and
treaties
F.)
The Act of the
Condemnation or Taking
of Private Property
into Federal Ownership
30.) DANGERS
OF "COLLECTIVE
TITLE" IN PROPERTY -
I.E. COMMUNISM AND
SOCIALISM
31.)
When Government
grants themselves
Exclusive Privileges
of Protection;
Harboring such a
defense in readiness
of acts against the
people; or to use to
protect themselves,
while they hand the
citizens into the
hands of a foreign
legislature (power)
i.e. such as United
Nations Sanctions.
32.) Regulations
VS Law; Removing
regulations does not
remove the ability
to employ "just"
laws; It simply
removes the power of
the government and
others to grant
privileges. A
set "just" Law
treats all
individuals equal;
Where regulations
and department
policies often allow
interpretation and
actual privileges.
33.) Government
Cannot Grant
Exclusive Privileges
to Itself, Nor can
it Grant Exclusive
Privileges to Others.
34.) Rights
Removed and
Exchanged for
Exclusive Privileges
Granted "by the
State" in WATER and
LAND
35.) Solutions
 |
|
|
APP
Notes on one
Subject in
Regard to
TITLE to
Property and
Land;
1.) First
is the
understanding
that a single
person's
Individual
ownership of
"title in
property"
equals
freedom;
and that
"collective"
ownership
(more than one
person) of
title in
property
equals
graduating
levels of
socialism.
2.) Secondly,
there is a
difference in
the granting
of TITLE to
"available
land" by the
people,
through the
people, where
past
government has
acquired lands
using money
from the
general
public;
Once a actual
"person" is
granted land
through the
"process" of
government, it
is complete
"OWNERSHIP"
of TITLE by a
PATENT;
It is a
"right" of
property by
grant, not
a privilege;
and as such
not subject
to, limited or
privileged,
nor can it be
collaterally
attacked or
condemned or
taken back by
government
(more on this
will be
presented in
our next 2010
Year End News
Letter "Wards
of the State").
Government
technically
cannot own
land or
property;
Government
buildings
(forts) and
necessary land
are there only
at the consent
of "local"
people and
their "local"
legislatives;
PRIVATE
PROPERTY once
transferred in
PATENT to an
individual
cannot be
taken away by
person,
legislative,
representative
or any form of
government.
Here
it is clear:
Samuel
Adams -
Absolute
Rights of the
Colonists
1772:
"...In
short it is
the greatest
absurdity
to suppose it
in the power of
one or any
number of men
at the
entering into
society,
to renounce
their
essential
natural
rights, or the
MEANS
of preserving
those
rightswhen the
great end of
civil
government
from the VERY
"NATURE" OF
ITS
INSTITUTION
is for the support,
protection and
defence of
those VERY
RIGHTS:
the principal
of which as is
before
observed, are
life, liberty
and PROPERTY.
..." "....Thirdly,
The
"supreme
power" (i.e. the
"LEGISLATIVE")"CANNOT"
"JUSTLY"
"TAKE"
from ANY
man, ANY
PART
of his PROPERTY
without his "CONSENT",in
>>>"PERSON"
"OR" (VERY
IMPORTANT) by
his "REPRESENTATIVE"."
I.E. There
is No
such thing
as "imminent
domain" outside
the "10
miles square" of
Washington DC;
Actually
"anywhere"; as
"taking for
public use" is
"very limited"
in even that
area: James
Madison
6-16-1788:
"(the federal
government)...cannot
be more than 1
mile"); Which,
when so used
outside that
area, it is
the use of force
without any
authority
never granted
by the
Constitution;
This is
defined by the
Ratifying
Conventions that define
the meaning of
the words
written in the
Constitution.
Powers imposed
on the states
by the federal
government
after the
civil war that
were never
delegated to
it, remain
unconstitutional,
VOID
and of NO
FORCE, but is a
force imposed
and enforced
without any
authority
under the
"PRETENSE of
AUTHORITY". As
Authority only
comes only
from the
"Original
Compact" that
the federal
government was
ORIGINALLY
created under.
|
|
|
|
|
To start us
off on the right
footing for this
news letter, here
are a few quotes
from the Founders
|
|
|
George
Mason
- Virginia
Declaration of
Rights
#4:
"That
"NO MAN",
OR "SET OF
MEN", are
entitled to exclusiveor
"separate
emoluments"or"privileges"
fromthe
"community",
but
in consideration
of "public"
services; which,
not being
descendible,
neither ought
the offices of
magistrate,
legislator, or
judge be
hereditary."
John
Locke - Civil
Government
1690:
John
Locke #142"...These
are the "bounds"
which the "trust"
that is put in
them (government)
by the society
and the law of
God and Nature
have set to
the
legislative
power of
every
commonwealth,
in ALL
forms of
government. First:
They are to
govern by promulgated
established
laws,
"NOT
TO BE VARIED
in particular
cases,
but to have ONE
RULE for rich
and poor, for
the favourite
at Court, and
the countryman
at plough. (APP
Note:See
these exact
words
in the Absolute
Rights of the
Colonists - By
Samuel Adams
1772)
Virginia
Ratifying
Convention
6-16-1788
defining the
Constitution:
Mr.
GRAYSON: "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 to
merchants
residing
within the "TEN
MILES SQUARE"
(Washington,
DC),it
would be
HIGHLY
injurious
to the
inhabitants of
OTHER
PLACES."
Mr.
GRAYSON:
Mr. Chairman,
one answer
which has been
given (by the
federalists)
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" (i.e. "
Washington DC"
and "National
Pride").
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.
(APP
Note:
Corporations,
Unions and
other state
born Exclusive
Privileged
entities,
have increased
this danger
beyond the TEN
MILES SQUARE
of Washington,
DC, having no
limits to area
granted such
exclusive
privileges by
government;
Compounded by
the fact that
the federal
government
itself has
expanded far
outside the
"10 MILES
SQUARE" it
was limited to
under the Original
Compact -
i.e.
Constitution;
)
James
Madison: (APP:
speaking of
the
limitations of
the federal
government)
"I
cannot
comprehend"
that the "power
of legislating"over
a
>>>"SMALL"
district,
which >>>"CANNOT
EXCEED "TEN"
MILES "square",
and >>>"MAY
NOT BE MORE
than
>>>"ONE"
MILE",
will involve
the dangers
which he apprehends.
If there be ANY
knowledge in my
mind
of the "nature"
of man, I
should think
it would be
the "LAST
THING" that
would enter
into the mind
of any man
>>>
to grant
"EXCLUSIVE
ADVANTAGES",
in a VERY
CIRCUMSCRIBED
district, to
the prejudice
of the community
"AT LARGE".
Thomas
Jefferson:
"If
the American
people EVER
allow private
banks to
control the
issue of their
money, first
by inflation
and then
by deflation,
the
"BANKS
and CORPORATIONS"
(APP:
Corporations
being a "state
born"
"Exclusive
Privilege" of
Cartel)
that will grow
up around them
(around the
banks which
are privileged
corporations
also),
will
deprive the
people of
their property
until their
children will
wake up
homeless on
the continent
their fathers
conquered."
Patrick
Henry -
Virginia
Ratifying
Convention
6-16-1788:
"We are told,
we are afraid
to trust
ourselves;
that our own
representatives
Congress will
not exercise
their powers
oppressively;
that
we shall not
enslave
ourselves;
that the
militia cannot
enslave
themselves.
WHO HAS
ENSLAVED
France, Spain,
Germany,
Turkey, and other
countries which
groan under
tyranny?
>>>>>>>They have been
>>>>>>>"ENSLAVED"
by the
hands of
THEIR
>>>>>>>"OWN"
PEOPLE.
>>>>>>>>>If it will be so in America,
it will be
only as it has
been every
where else."
Samuel
Adams - 1776:
"If ye love"wealth
greater than
liberty" (Granting
and Accepting
Exclusive
State
Privileges),
the "tranquility
(i.e. PEACE
possessed)
of servitude
(Dependency
upon
Government)"
greater
than the
animating
contest for
freedom, go
home from us
in peace.
We seek not
your counsel,
nor your arms.
Crouch
down and lick
the hand that
feeds you;
May
your chains
set lightly
upon you,
and MAY
POSTERITY FORGET
THAT YE WERE
OUR COUNTRYMEN."
----------------
|
|
|
|
|
To all State Chair
Persons and Party
Members:
Welcome to the American
Patriot Party!
The subject for the 2009
Year End News Letter is
Exclusive
Privileges
and Contracts.
Many of our state and
federal problems can be
linked to, stem from,
and are the result from
our federal, state and
local governments
granting Exclusive
Privileges; And
as you will find from
this news letter, in
more ways than you
might think.
All governments, and
organizations are made
up of people; The "construction
of power" is
what differentiates
between a free
government and a
socialist government.
The Founder's
understood, that it is
from state
born "Exclusive
Privileges"
which stems the
corruption that takes
hold and cause
destruction of true
liberty and
destruction of "true
free trade" within a
free society;
The Founder's
intent was to guard
against "Exclusive
Privileges"; As
presented in the
previous quotes. "Exclusive
Privileges"
are found to be common
place in corrupt
governments and
those becoming
corrupt.
It did not take long
before the federal and
state governments began
to step away from
their limited
"delegated" powers
granted in their"Original
Compacts"
(Constitution"s"),
and to begin
granting"Exclusive
Privileges"
of all types;Between
them and the society
that elected them,
and between
the individuals within
the society such as is
apparent in "Zoning"
laws. Political power
of the two larger
parties is granted
privileges by the
governments placing
the bar to be
recognized by the
government as a
party so high
that few can achieve
it.
Dependency
on Private
Collectives, No
different than
Dependency upon
Societal Socialism.
Keep in mind
that "Privatized"
Socialism or
Privately Organized
Exclusive Privileged
"Collectivism",
is "still"
socialism. It
matters not whether it
is part of any
recognized government,
nor the name which it
resides under;
DEPENDENCY upon
large or numerousState
Born Exclusive
Privileged Private "Collectives"
(such as
Corporations and
Unions), can
have the same
effect upon
citizens and labor, as
the DEPENDENCY
citizens have when
under Socialism in
government. As
more and more citizens
migrate toward "collective
entities",
Individual owned
businesses are slowly
squeezed out of
existence; Competition
going to a FEW;
Instead of between the
MANY,as was the
intention of free
societies promoting
individual freedoms
and independent
business.
Where independent
sole owner businesses
create independence;
Exclusive privileged
labor creates
DEPENDENCY upon
others:
*Corporate labor
dependent upon the
Corporation (whoever
that may be);
*Union labor dependent
upon the Union it
belongs;
*Public Dependent and
forced to pay
government's dictated
Union MAXIMUM
prevailing wages.
*Tax supported Special
Interests dependent upon
Government money;
Governments
(federal and state)
which in many cases take
unconsensual
unenumerated (and
thereby
unconstitutional) Taxes
from the public.
*Undelegated (under the
Original Compact)
Federal, state and local
Government Bureaucracies
(usually
unconstitutionally
mandated) who are not
only dependent upon the
public, also forcibly
take unconsensual,
unenumerated Taxes from
the public without
authority, dictate
MAXIMUM prevailing
wages established
by Unions, and not wages
established by public local
community consent or
determination.
Free
Trade Affected.
You will see
clearly, that there
is a vast difference
between Exclusive
Privileged /
Advantaged Trade and
True Free Trade.
There is also
now, little or no
difference between
such "Exclusive
Privileged
entities";
This is as Unions
Incorporate
themselves, Corporations
Unionize
themselves or use union
contracts with their
own;
Tax supported special
interests do both
as well, and derive
funds from government
grants and programs
(taken from arbitrary
unenumerated taxation);
Undelegated (Not
existing under the
Original Compact) and
delegated government
bureaucracies,
Unionize, demand
prevailing (maximum)
wages and develop
"exclusive
privileged"
"contracts" with
Corporations and
Unions.
Exclusive
Privileges, Free Trade
and Economics
Before any economic
issue can be solved
"EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES",
(sometimes called Crony
Capitalism) needs to be
solved.
But also the need to
"correctly define" the
terms we use in
defining it.
The Founders defined
"Crony Capitalism", a
term sometimes used
today, as "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES";
Once the proper
"term" is
established, the base of
the problem can be
viewed in a much clearer
light.
State born "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES"
of "CARTEL"
create the condition of
"EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGED"
Trade;
This is found in the
"collective financial
powers" that they are
able to wield in the
market, the financial
manipulation of lobbying
of our laws, and the
dependency they create
in those that are drawn
to these entities as the
true free market is
REDUCED by the ever
increasing existence of
more collective work
forces, or "PRIVATIZED
COLLECTIVE SOCIALISM".
So before (or while)
economics is discussed,
so should the removal
of "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES"
be discussed.
Which
are:
1.) Corporations
2.) Unions
3.) Tax Supported
Special Interests
4.) Undelegated (Under
the Original
Constitution) Federal
Bureaucracies and
State mandated
Bureaucracies
5.) Zoning (Federal
mandated, State and
Local) That create
Exclusive
Privileges
between one citizen
over another; As to
where and how they are
able to do
business or in which
way they they are able
to use their property.
6.) Cities; Which are
a "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGE" of
"Corporate Cartel" use
this ZONING to
direct and limit trade
to businesses in their
area and
vicinity.
All of these
establish NOT
free trade,
but"EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGED"Trade.
And #5 is as great a
cause as all the rest in
causing unemployment and
reducing and
limiting true free
competition against the
rest.
The Argument of "FREEDOM
of CONTRACT" holds "NO
MEANING" when "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES" are allowed
to exist; as "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES" corrupt the
principle and meaning of
"free contracts and true
free trade"
HOW can there be free
trade and a free market
value of oil when only
large corporations can
compete with government
controlled contracts,
and a private person is
prohibited from drilling
for oil on his own land
because of harsh zoning
and environmental laws
held against private
property?
It simply cannot.
So, while looking at the
economics, we should be
putting an even harder
effort to removing the
greatest corruption of
freedom: "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES";
And to define it for
what it "IS", and not
use the term
"Crony
Capitalism";
... as "Capitalism"
is also a "undefinable
term" when "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES" are
allowed to exist.
--------
Virginia
Ratifying
Convention
6-16-1788
Mr. GRAYSON:
"...Adverting to the
clause investing
Congress with the power
of exclusive legislation
in a district not
exceeding "ten miles
square", he
said he had before
expressed his doubts
that this {431} district
would be the favorite of
the generality, and that
it would be possible for
them to give "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES" of
commerce to those
residing within it. He
had illustrated what he
said by European
examples. It might be
said to be impracticable
to exercise this power
in this manner. 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 "guarded
AGAINST"; for
should such"EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES" be
granted to merchants
residing within the
ten miles square,
it
would be highly
injurious to the
inhabitants of OTHER
PLACES."
Mr.
GEORGE MASON
"thought that there were
few
clauses in the
Constitution "so
dangerous as that"
which gave Congress
"exclusive power of
legislation" within
"ten miles square". Implication,
he observed, was
capable of any
extension,
and would probably
be extended to
augment the
congressional powers. (APP NOTE: as
presently found in "FEDERAL
MANDATES" and
undelegated powers) But
here there was no need
of implication. This
clause gave them an
unlimited authority, in
every possible case,
within that district.
This ten miles square,
says Mr. Mason, may set
at defiance the laws of
the surrounding states,
and may, like the custom
of the superstitious
days of our ancestors,
become the sanctuary of
the blackest crimes.
Here the federal courts
are to sit. We
have heard a good
deal said of
justice. ...
"
APP: Note the
sarcasm in George
Mason's last sentence.
Mr.
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 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
bethe 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". ......."The
states may make what
stipulation they please
in it, and,
if they apprehend ANY
danger, they may "REFUSE
it ALTOGETHER"."
Civil
Law VS Common Law
The involvement
of these "entities"
with each other, have
created yet
greater dangers
as they entrench
themselves into our
governments, local
societies and laws.Their
"collective powers"
have developed the
ART of manipulation
in our courts,
legislation, lobby
practices and laws;
The steady
transformation that our
founders feared would
happen, the
transformation "from
"Common
Law that protects
private property,
liberty and limits
powers,"into"
solely Civil
Law, HAS HAPPENED;
The condition that man,
through use of
legislation outside
the limited delegated
powers and limited
authority, begins to dictate
what he pleases to
the detriment of
private property,
liberties and the
entrenchment
of adverse powers -
over the will of
local societies and
individual rights;
It is important that you
understand this critical
reasoning that the
Founders understood
well; This
conflict is what was
described by the
Founders as God
and Natures laws
(Common Law),
verses that termed as
>>>>>>>"HUMAN
Legislation":
Patrick
Henry 6-16-1788
Ratifying
Convention. (a
warning):
"...There is,
therefore, more
occasion
for the supplementary
check of a bill of
rights
"now" than
then.
Congress, from their
"general, powers", "may"
fully go into business
of >>>>>>>"HUMAN
legislation"...."
"....In
"this" (HUMAN)"business
of legislation",
your members of Congress
will"LOOSE
the RESTRICTION"
of not imposing
excessive fines,demanding
excessive bail,
and inflicting cruel
and unusual
punishments.These
are prohibited
by your Declaration
of Rights. What
has distinguished
our ancestors?That
they would not admit
of tortures, or
cruel and barbarous
punishment.
But
Congress "may"
introduce
>>>the
practice of the "CIVIL
law", in PREFERENCE
to that of the "COMMON
law".
They "MAY" {448}
introduce the practice of
France, Spain, and
Germany of "torturing",
to extort a
confession of the
crime.They
will SAY that they
might as well draw
examples from those
countries as from
Great Britain, and
they will tell
you that there is
such a necessity of
strengthening the arm
of government,
that they must have a
criminal equity,
and extort confession by
torture, in order to
punish with "still
more" relentless
severity.
>>>>>>>>>We are then "LOST and UNDONE".
And
can any man think it
troublesome,when
we can, by a
small interference,
prevent our rights
from being lost?
If you will, like the
Virginian government, give
them "knowledge of
the extent" of
the rights
retained by the
people, and
the powers of
themselves,
they
will, if they be
honest men, thank
you for it. Will
they not wish to go
on sure grounds? But
if you leave them
otherwise, they
will not know how
to proceed;
and, being in a state
of uncertainty, they
(the governments)
will >>>"ASSUME"
rather than give
up
powers by "implication".
A bill of
rights may
be summed up in a few
words. What do they tell
us?That our rights
are reserved.Why
not say so? Is
it because it will
consume too much
paper?
Gentlemen's reasoning
against a "bill of
rights" does not
satisfy me.
Without saying which has
the right side, it
remains doubtful. A bill
of rights is a favorite
thing with the
Virginians and the
people of the other
states likewise. It may
be their prejudice, but
the government ought to
suit their geniuses; otherwise,
its operation will be
unhappy. A bill
of rights,
even if its necessity be
doubtful, will
>>>>>>>>>>>"exclude
the possibility" of
dispute;
and, with great
submission,I
think the BEST way
is to
>>>>>>>>>>>"have
NO DISPUTE"..."
ENTERS:
"EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES":
A General Rule
of Thumb to
Recognize EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES:
If you must to go to
the (county, state,
federal or other)
government for ANY
"THING" that
will be provided
through them, either
by favor, regulation
or finance, for which
an advantage or a
permission will be
granted to one person,
that may not be given
or which is not freely
and equally available
to another, with or
without government,
there exists "Exclusive
Privilege".
By simply ALLOWING ANY
government to "decide
and grant privileges",
this is just the
beginning of the
"CORRUPTION" of the
Constitution,
essential natural
rights and of TRUE
free trade.
In this fourth
issue of the
American Patriot
Party National News
Letter,we
discuss the Dangers of
government granting "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES", the corruption
in society created
by and feeding upon
it, and the need
of Removing all
State born Exclusive
Privileges which are:
1.)
Corporations
2.) Unions
3.) Tax Supported
Special Interests
4.) Undelegated (Under
the Original
Constitution) Federal
Bureaucracies and
State mandated
Bureaucracies
5.) Zoning (Federal
mandated, State and
Local) That create
Exclusive
Privileges
between one citizen
over another; As to
where and how they are
able to do
business or in which
way they they are able
to use their property.
6.) Cities; Which are
a "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGE" of
"Corporate Cartel" use
this ZONING to
direct and limit trade
to businesses in their
area and
vicinity.
Also covered,
is the procedures
necessary to remove
them.
I
hope you will enjoy and
find insight from both
the dialog and Founder's
own words we have
offered.
Sincerely,
Richard Taylor
Chair
American Patriot
Party.CC
American Patriot Party
State of Oregon
1.)The Basic
Foundations of
Freedom and Free
Society's Creation
under "ORIGINAL
COMPACT(S)"
Constitutional Common
Law Republics VS
"PRIVILEGES" and
"CONTRACTS";
A.)
The Corruption by
Exclusive Privileges
and Contracts
The Corruption
by Either
Introducing
or Allowing
Exclusive Privileges
to Exist, "OR" Unrestrained
and Unlimited
Freedom of Contracts
that Defy Reason
is best explained by
examining Common
Law VS Civil
Law. Noting
as Patrick Henry's quote
above presented, that
Free Governments cannot
employ "Arbitrary"
civil law undermining or
against the established
principles of Common
law. (i.e.
Common Law - "Preexisting
claims to rights IN
the people" belong
to the people,
whether included in
any compact or not -
George Nicholas in
the same Virginia
Ratifying Convention
6-16-1788)
The Corruption in
Law when Corporate or
government Lawyers or
Judges begin to redefine
our laws outside the
limited delegated powers
and establish a "precedence
in law" that redefines
the PLAIN SENSE
INTENTIONS
set down by the founders
to arrogate upon
federal, state, other
municipalities and
private entities, powers
NO WHERE INTENDED to be granted; Such
as seen in
Condemnation laws,
Imminent domain
laws, policing
powers and the
General Welfare
Clause.
Often from "EXPOUNDING"
ON THE "GENERAL
PHRASES" of the
Constitution. See The
Virginia and
Kentucky Resolutions
1798 where James
Madison establishes the
necessity
of NULLIFYING any
law that is
established upon EXPOUNDING
upon the "GENERAL
PHRASES" of the
Constitution.
B.)
Historical Indicators
of Exclusive
Privileges:
History presents
that for freedom and
free trade to work and
work correctly, "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES"
granted by or in
governments must
not exist;
and that the the deterioration
of freedom itself, begins
with the allowance
of "Exclusive
Privileges".
This deterioration
becomes very visible
when government is seen
to step outside it's "limited
delegated powers"
of the "ORIGINAL
COMPACT" for which it was
granted
"LIMITED" Authorityby
the people at
it's (That society's)
creation.
C.)
The Visible
Indicators:
a.) The
arising of state
born "Exclusive
Privileged
Entities", groups,
and undelegated
bureaucracies which
is now WIDESPREAD;
(corporations,
unions, tax
supported special
interests,
undelegated
bureaucracies and
zoning)
b.) When the
government "itself"
begins to create Exclusive
Privileges for "themselves";
A modern example of
this, would be the
recent Health
Care Bill that everyone
in the United States
would have to comply
with ..... >>>EXCEPT>>>>>CONGRESS!;
Who have privileged
themselves with an exclusion!
John
Locke #143:
"...Therefore in
"well-ordered
commonwealths", where
the good of the whole
is so considered "as
it ought", the
legislative power is
put into the hands of
divers persons who,
duly assembled, have
by themselves, or
jointly with others, a
power to make laws,
which when they
have done, being
separated again,
they are themselves
subject
to the laws they
have made;
which is a new and
near tie upon them
to take care that
they make them for
the public good.
c.) Another
example is the
privilege of "Presidential
Proclamations"!!!!, a POWER
NO WHERE granted in
the Constitution!
D.)
The Warning:
Patrick
Henry's and George
Mason'swarning
that Congress may do
just what has been
done by our corrupted
Congress (Virginia
Ratifying Convention
6-16-1788):
PATRICK
HENRY: "...The
people within THAT
place (Washington, DC),
and the strongholds,
may be "excused
from all the burdens
imposed on the rest
of the society",
and "may"
"ENJOY EXCLUSIVE
EMOLUMENTS", to
the great INJURY
of the rest of the
people.
But gentlemen say that
the power will
not he abused.
They
ought to "show that
it is necessary".
GEORGE
MASON: ...
"...But I wish a
clause in the
Constitution, with
respect to ALL powers
which are NOT granted,
that they are retained
by the states. Otherwise,
the power of providing
for the "general
welfare"
may be "PERVERTED
TO IT'S DESTRUCTION"....
"Unless there be some
express declaration
that EVERY THING
>>>"NOTGIVEN"
is retained,
>>>>>>>IT
WILL BE CARRIED TO
>>>>>>>>"ANY
POWER CONGRESS MAY
PLEASE"."
Now again let us
review James
Madison's reply
to these warnings:
JAMES
MADISON:
"...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 (i.e. 10 miles of
Washington DC),
to the prejudice of
the community "AT
LARGE".
".....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."
E.)
No Regulation That
May Effect The
Citizens Of The Union
At Large
The "Federal"
health care bill
itself, as with "ANY
REGULATION" that
will effect the
>>>"Union
at Large"
that is clearly OUTSIDE
the delegated powers
of congress, is
therefore unconstitutional
and of NO force
or authority,
NOR can it be
"ratified" by the
states to be made so;
As that would be a
means to "ARROGATE"
power it is expressly
prohibited from doing:
Virginia
Ratifying Convention
6-16-1788:Mr.
PENDLETON.
"...Mr. Chairman, this
clause does "NOT"
give Congress power to
impede the operation
of "ANY
PART"
of the Constitution,
>>>(N)OR to
make
>>>>>>>"ANY"
>>>
"REGULATION" that " "MAY"
affect the
"interests" of the
citizens of the
>>>>>UNIONAT
LARGE.".......
"With
respect to the
necessity of the >>>"TEN
miles square"
being superseded by
the subsequent clause,
which gives them power
to make all laws which
shall be necessary and
proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing
powers, and all other
powers
vested
by this Constitution
in the government of
the United States, or
in any department or
officer thereof,
I understand that
clause as
NOT going a "SINGLE
STEP BEYOND" the
"DELEGATED"
powers". What
can it act upon?
Some power given
by this Constitution.
If they should be
about to pass a law in
consequence of this
clause, they must
pursue some of the
"DELEGATED
powers", but can by "NO
MEANS" depart
from them,
>>>(N)OR
"ARROGATE" "ANY
NEW" POWERS;
for the "PLAIN
LANGUAGE" of the
clause is, to give
them power to pass
laws in order to give
"effect" to the "DELEGATED"
powers"."
F.)
No Excuse For
Allowing That Which
Should Not Even Exist
***As presented
throughout our site:
The "EXCUSE"
(as often argued) of
Allowing for "everyone"
the "ability" to have
"exclusive privileges"
granted to them by the
state,
is NO EXCUSE
for allowing "THAT"
which should "NOT
EVEN EXIST".
G.)
Limitation of
Contracts:
Contracts also
have limitations;
Often heard is the
attempt to establish
that the "freedom
of contract" is
a "license" derived
from freedom and is
without limitation,
or ability to do "anything
one LISTS" (i.e.
WANTS);
This is wholly
incorrect.
This description is
clearly established by
John Locke as "NOT"
freedom. For to
establish this, is what
John Locke has explained
as a "incorrect
mindset of freedom".
A power to create a
contract that would
enslave another beyond
reason, either
physically or
financially is
not a freedom for
anyone to establish.
This is a
description of
slavery. It is the
acceptance of
another person
relinquishing his
essential natural
rights through
"fear, fraud or
mistake".
Rights
of the Colonists:
"...If men through
fear, fraud or
mistake, should in
terms renounce and
give up any
essential natural
right,
the eternal law of
reason and the great
end of society, would
absolutely vacate such
renunciation; the
[Volume 5, Page 396]
right to freedom being
the gift of God
Almighty, it
is "not in the power
of Man to alienate
this gift", and
"voluntarily become
a slave"--"
Because "Exclusive
Privileges"
are derived first from
governments, let us
review some historical
documents so to
understand the
principles;
Here John
Locke presents the
understanding of
law:
Locke
6.
(Referring to man in
the "State" of
"Nature" i.e.
without government) But
though this be a "state
of liberty", yet it
is >>>"NOT
A STATE OF LICENSE";
though man in that
state have
an uncontrollable
liberty to dispose of
his person or
possessions, yet he
has not liberty to
destroy himself,
or so much as any
creature in his
possession, but where
some nobler use
than its bare
preservation calls for
it. The
"State of Nature"
has a "Law of
Nature" to
govern it,
which obliges every
one, and "REASON",
"which is THAT law",
teaches all mankind
who will but
consult it,
that being all
equal and
"independent",
>>>no one
ought to harm
another in his life,
health, liberty or
possessions; for
men being ALL the
workmanship of one
omnipotent and
infinitely wise Maker;
all the servants of one
sovereign Master, sent
into the world by His
order and about His
business; they are His
property, whose
workmanship they are
made to last during His,
not one another's
pleasure.
Locke
21."The
"natural
liberty" of man is
to be free from any
superior power
on earth, and not to be
under the will or
legislative authority of
man, but to have ONLY
the "Law of Nature"
for his rule. (APP
Note: See this exact
wording from Samuel
Adams in the
Absolute Rights of
the Colonists 1772)
The
liberty of man "IN"
"SOCIETY" is
to be under no
other legislative
power but that established
by "consent" in
the commonwealth,
nor under the
dominion of any will,
or restraint of
any law, but
what that legislative
shall enact >>>"ACCORDING"
TO THE "TRUST"
PUT INTO IT. (APP: i.e. the "ORIGINAL
COMPACT" that
the society was "FIRST"
created under, and the
"intent" under which
it had been Ratified )
>>>>>>>>>>Freedom,then,
is "NOT" what
Sir Robert Filmer
tells us: A
liberty for every
one "to do what he
lists", to live
as he pleases, and not
to be tied by any
laws"; but freedom
of men "under
government" is
to have a standing
rule to live by,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"COMMON TO EVERY
ONE of THAT society",
and made by the
legislative power
erected in it. A
liberty to follow
my own will in all
things where that
rule prescribes not,
not to be subject
to the inconstant,
uncertain, unknown,
ARBITRARY
will
of another man,
as freedom
of nature is
to be under no
other restraint BUT
the "Law of Nature".
" ("Common to
Everyone", i.e.
accessible to everyone
and Not "Arbitrary",
i.e. Not arbitrarily
given to one and not
the other, this would
exclude all exclusive
privileges)
Locke
22."This
freedom from
absolute, ARBITRARY
power is"SO
NECESSARY" to, and
closely joined with,
a man's preservation,
that he cannot
part with it but by
what forfeits his
preservation and
life together.For
a man, not having
the power of his own
life,
"CANNOT by COMPACT"
(i.e. CONTRACT or
CONSTITUTION)"OR"
his "OWN CONSENT"
"ENSLAVE" himself
to "ANY ONE", NOR
PUT
himself under the
absolute, ARBITRARY
power of another to
take away his life
when he pleases. Nobody
can give more power
than he has himself,
and he that cannot
take away his own
life cannot
give another power
"OVER" it...."
(See
this in the Rights
of the Colonists
1772 as:Samuel
Adams:
"...If men through fear,
fraud or mistake, should
in terms renounce and
give up any essential
natural right, the
eternal law of reason and
the great end of
society, would
absolutely vacate such
renunciation; the
[Volume 5, Page 396]
right to freedom being
the gift of God
Almighty, it
is not in the power
of Man to alienate
this gift, and
"voluntarily become
a slave"--")
Locke
23. This is
the perfect
condition of slavery,
which is nothing
else but the state
of war continued
between a lawful
conqueror and a captive,
for if once "COMPACT"
enter between them,
and make an
agreement for a
>>>"LIMITED"
POWER"
on the one side,
and obedience
on the other,
the "state
of war and slavery
ceases"
as long as the "COMPACT"endures;
for, as has been said, no
man can by agreement
pass over to another
that which he hath not
in himself
-- a
power over his own
life."
Locke
57:"....So
that however it may be
mistaken, the end
of law is NOT
to abolish or
restrain,
but to preserve
and enlarge
freedom. For
in all the states of
created beings,
capable of laws,
>>>where
there is NO law
there is NO freedom. For
liberty is
to be free from
restraint and violence
from others, which
CANNOT
BE
where there is no
law;
and is "NOT",
as we are told, "a
liberty for every man
to do what he LISTS."
For who could be free,
when every other
man's humour might
domineer over him? But
a liberty to dispose and
order freely as he lists
his person, actions,
possessions, and his
whole property within
the "allowance" of
"THOSE laws" (i.e.
"Original Compact")
under
>>>which HE
"IS",
and therein not
to be subject to the
arbitrary will of
another,
but freely follow his
own."
H.)
The Original Compact
>>>Here
is a very important
understanding in
freedom and
is often passed by;
Understanding that when
people create a
society,
they must first agree on
a "COMPACT".
When created,
it is considered to be
the "ORIGINAL
COMPACT".
Republics are bound
by this "ORIGINAL
COMPACT"; Unlike
total Democracies that
can change any law,
which eventually
corrupts itself;
Republics "CANNOT
CHANGE"and are bound
by the
"ORIGINAL COMPACT"
they were
first created
under;You
will find this description
and it's limitationupon
governments in the
Founders Documents.
Samuel
Adams - Absolute
Rights of the
Colonists 1772:
When Men enter
into Society, it is by
voluntary consent;
and they have a "RIGHT"
to "DEMAND" and
"INSIST"
upon the performance
of such
conditions, And
"PREVIOUS
limitations"
as form
an equitable >>>"ORIGINAL
COMPACT".
-- Every natural Right
not expressly given up
or from the nature of
a Social Compact
"necessarily"
ceded REMAINS.
-- All positive and CIVIL
laws,
should CONFORM
as far as possible, to
the Law of NATURAL
REASON and
equity.-- (i.e. COMMON LAW
- i.e. God and Natures
Law, Reason and
Equity)
I.)
Compacts Cannot
Change - Including The
Constitution:
Once
a "COMPACT" is
Created,it
"CANNOT" change.
The exception to
this rule is when the Compact
"itself" allows for CERTAIN
TYPES of
changes.
The U.S. Constitution
allows for changes "ONLY"
"WITHIN" the
"DELEGATED"
powers.
This LIMITS
the function of the
"Amendment
and Ratifying
Process"
to "ONLY"
those things
that are WITHIN
the DELEGATED
powers; State
or Federal
Legislatives
"CANNOT"
"Ratify"UNDELEGATED
powers to empower
the federal government outside
the DELEGATED
powers of the "ORIGINAL
COMPACT".
Nor can the
amendment process, which
was meant to be used to
make changes
WITHIN THE LIMITED
DELEGATED POWERS to protect our
freedoms, be used to
ARROGATE NEW powers upon the federal
government which it has
been
expressly
prohibited from
stepping outside the
delegated powers to
acquire; Not even
by one step..
J.)
No New Forms of
Taxation or
Regulations
The unenumerated
indirect "income tax" is
an example of a
undelegated power that cannot
be "ratified by the
states" into a new
federal power;
Declared twice
unconstitutional, it
remains
unconstitutional
as ARROGATING NEW
POWERS are expressly
prohibited.
This is explained by the
Founders in several
ways:
Virginia
Ratifying Convention
6-16-1788:
Edmund
Pendleton:
>>>
".....They can make NO
REGULATION
that "MAY" effect
the citizens of
the >>>UNION
AT LARGE"
"I
understand that clause
as NOT
going a "SINGLE
STEP BEYOND" the
"DELEGATED
powers".
What can it act upon?
Some power given by this
Constitution. If they
should be about to pass
a law in consequence of
this clause, they must
pursue some of the "DELEGATED
powers",
but can by "NO
MEANS" depart
from them, (N)OR
"ARROGATE" "ANY
NEW" powers; for
the "PLAIN
LANGUAGE"of
the clause is,
to give them power to
pass laws in order to
give "effect" to the "DELEGATED"
powers".
a.)
This "RESTRICTS"
the "states" from
"ratifying" powers
UPON the federal
government to
accomplish the "SAME
ARROGATION OF
POWERS" that is
"EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITED"
b.) This
Constitutional
restriction
also includes limiting
the federal
government from
creating regulations
and powers to
"prosecute new
crimes" not
originally
delegated;
Granting
itself the power to
prosecute tax
evasion is NOT a
delegated power
granted the federal
government;
See Kentucky
Resolutions 1798:Thomas
Jefferson:
#
2. Resolved,
That the Constitution of
the United States,
having delegated to
Congress a power to
a.) punish treason,
b.) counterfeiting the
securities and current
coin of the United
States,
c.) piracies, and
d.) felonies committed
on the high seas (APP: On the High
Seas ONLY. NOT
"within
the states"),
and
e.) offenses against
the law of nations,
and
"NO OTHER CRIMES,
WHATSOEVER"
and
it being true as a
general principle, and
one of the amendments to
the Constitution having
also declared, that "the
powers not delegated to
the United States by the
Constitution, not
prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved
to the States
respectively, or to
the people,"
therefore the act of
Congress, passed on the
14th day of July, 1798,
and intituled "An Act in
addition to the act
intituled An Act for the
punishment of certain
crimes against the
United States," as also
the act passed by them
on the day of June,
1798, intituled "An Act
to punish frauds
committed on the bank of
the United States," (and
ALL their other acts
which "ASSUME" to
"CREATE", "DEFINE",
or "PUNISH"
crimes, "OTHER
than those SO
ENUMERATED in the
Constitution",)
>>>ARE
ALTOGETHER "VOID,
AND OF NO FORCE", and
that the power to
create, define, and
punish such other
crimes is reserved,
and, of right,
appertains SOLELY
and EXCLUSIVELY
to the respective
"STATES", each
within its "OWN"
territory."
K.)
Governments Cannot
Create Their Own
Authority:
Republics
are based upon "UNCHANGEABLE
ORIGINAL COMPACTS" which create AUTHORITY that can ONLY be
granted BY THE
PEOPLE WHO "HAD"
CREATE IT.
FREE
GOVERNMENTS CANNOT
CREATE THEIR "OWN"
AUTHORITY.
The understanding
that COMPACTS
CANNOT CHANGE "ONCE
CREATED"is important,
because it establishes the
POINT in time
when Tyranny, or "Force
Without Authority", would begin.
And that point, is when
the government first
establishes a design
or creates steps outside the DELEGATED powers
granted to it, and
beyond that which it
was given "LIMITED
AUTHORITY" under
the "ORIGINAL"
"COMPACT";
John
Locke: #142:
"...Fourthly:
Legislative neither
must nor can transfer
the power of making
laws to anybody else,
or place it anywhere
but where the people have."
John Locke:
#212: "...When
any one, or more,
shall take upon them
to make laws whom the
people have not
appointed so to do, they
make laws without
authority,
which the people are
not therefore bound to
obey; by which means
they come again to be
out of subjection, and
may constitute to
themselves a new
legislative, as they
think best, being in
full liberty to resist
the force of those
who, without
authority, would
impose anything upon
them. Every one is at
the disposure of his
own will, when those
who had, by the
"delegation" of the
society, the declaring
of the public will,
are excluded from it,
and others usurp the
place who have no such
authority or
delegation."
Virginia
Ratifying Convention
6-16-1788 (Defining
our Constitutional
"COMPACT"):
Edmond Pendleton: >>>
".....They can make NO
REGULATION
that "MAY"effect
the citizens of
the >>>UNION
AT LARGE"
"I understand that
clause as NOT
going a "SINGLE
STEP BEYOND" the
"DELEGATED
powers".
What can it act upon?
Some power given by this
Constitution. If they
should be about to pass
a law in consequence of
this clause, they must
pursue some of the "DELEGATED
powers",
but can by "NO
MEANS" depart
from them, (N)OR
"ARROGATE" "ANY
NEW" powers; for
the "PLAIN
LANGUAGE"of
the clause is,
to give them power to
pass laws in order to
give "effect" to the "DELEGATED"
powers"."
".....Why
oppose this power?
Suppose it was
contrary to the sense
of their constituents
to grant exclusive
privileges to citizens
residing within that
place; the effect
would be directly in
opposition to what he
says. It
could have no
operation without the
limits of that
district.
Were Congress to make
a law granting them an
exclusive privilege of
trading to the East
Indies, it
could have NO effect
the moment it would
go without that
place;
for their "exclusive
power"is confined
to that district.
Were they to pass such
a law,it
would be NUGATORY;
and every member of
the community at large
could trade to the
East Indies as well as
the citizens of that
district. This "exclusive
power" is limited to
that place solely,
for their "own"
preservation, which
all gentlemen allow to
be necessary.
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".
Therefore the
federal "authority" of
this country is both
limited in power and
in area; and
restricted from
exceeding those
"bounds" or else their
acts are VOID and
WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
L.)
Unlimited Arbitrary
Authority Prohibited
From Compacts
And it is further
very important to
understand that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to
give Unlimited
Arbitrary Authority by Compact (i.e.
CONTRACT) or ANY OTHER
means, over people in
free governments;
To do so, is what John Locke clearly and
rightly establishes as
"Slavery" under
an arbitrary power.
John
Locke #23.
This is the perfect
condition of slavery,
which is nothing else
but the state of war continued
between a lawful
conqueror and a
captive, for if once "COMPACT"
enter between them,
and make an "AGREEMENT"
for a >>>"LIMITED"power
on the one side, and
obedience on the
other, the state of
war and slavery ceases
AS
LONG as the
"COMPACT" endures;
for, as has been said,
NO
MAN can "by
AGREEMENT" (i.e.
"CONTRACT" or
"COMPACT") pass
over to another that
which he hath not
in himself -- a
power over his own
life".
John
Locke #135.
"...A man, as has been
proved, "CANNOT"
subject himself to
the "ARBITRARY
POWER" of another;
and having, in the
state of Nature, "NO"
"ARBITRARY POWER"
over the life,
liberty, or possession
of another, but only
so much as the law of
Nature gave him for
the preservation of
himself and the rest
of mankind, this
is all he doth, or
can give up to the
commonwealth, and by
it to the
legislative power,
so that the
legislative can have
no more than this.
Their power in the
utmost bounds of it is
limited to the public
good of the society.10
It is a power that
hath no other end but
preservation, and
therefore can
"NEVER" have a right
to destroy, enslave,
or designedly to
impoverish the
subjects;
Virginia
Constitutional
Ratifying Convention
6-16-1788
- Patrick Henry:
"...If it (the federal
government)
be unbounded (allowed to step
outside the limited
delegated powers),
it
must lead to
despotism;
for the power of a
people in a free
government is supposed
to be "paramount"
to the existing
power...."
M.)
Dissolution of
Government,
Reinstituting The
State of War and
Rebellion:
State or Federal
Governments STEPPING
OUTSIDE the LIMITED
DELEGATED powers to grant "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES",corrupts
the law and the
limited authority.
Renewing
the State of War.
HERE
it is long
established, THAT: When Federal
"OR" State
governments Step outside
the Delegated
powers granted them
under an "ORIGINAL
COMPACT"
(Constitutions), governments
"DISSOLVE"
themselves.
This is called the "DISSOLUTION
of GOVERNMENT"
which John Locke
clearly establishes:
John
Locke #212.
"Besides this
overturning from
without,
governments are "DISSOLVED"
from WITHIN:
"First. When the
legislative is altered,
civil society being a
state of peace amongst
those who are of it,
from whom the state of
war is excluded by
the umpirage
which they have
provided in their
legislative for the
ending all differences
that may arise amongst
any of them; it is in
their legislative that
the members of a
commonwealth are united
and combined together
into one coherent living
body. This is the
soul that gives
form, life, and
unity to the
commonwealth;
from hence the several
members have their
mutual influence,
sympathy, and
connection; and
therefore when the
legislative is
broken, or "DISSOLVED",
dissolution and
death follows. For
the essence and union of
the society consisting
in having one will, the
legislative, when once
established
by the majority,
has the declaring
and, as it were,
keeping of THAT will
(APP: i.e.
"ORIGINAL INTENT").
The CONSTITUTION of
the legislative is the
FIRST and
fundamental ACT of
society,
whereby provision is
made for the
continuation of their
union under the
direction of persons and
bonds of laws,
made by persons
authorised there
unto, by the
consent
and appointment of
the people,
without which no
one man, or
number of men, amongst
them can have
authority of making
laws that shall be
binding to the
rest.
WHEN
any ONE, or MORE,
shall take upon them
to make laws whom
the people have NOT
appointed so to do,
"THEY MAKE LAWS
WITHOUT AUTHORITY",
which the people are
"NOT THEREFORE BOUND
TO OBEY "; by
which means they come
again to be OUT
of subjection,
and may
constitute to
themselves a new
legislative, as they
think best,
being
in "FULL LIBERTY TO
RESIST" the force of
those who, "WITHOUT
AUTHORITY", would
impose ANYTHING upon
them.Every
ONE is at the
disposure of his OWN
will, when
those who had,by
the "DELEGATION" ("DELEGATED"
POWERS OF THE
"ORIGINAL COMPACT")
of the society, the
declaring of the
public will, are
"EXCLUDED" from it,
and OTHERS usurp the
place who have "NO"
such "AUTHORITY" or
"DELEGATION"...." (i.e. ALL
THOSE not staying
within the limited
DELEGATED POWERS OF
THE "ORIGINAL
COMPACT")
John
Locke #214.
First, that when
such a single person or
prince sets up his own
arbitrary will
in place of the laws
which are the will of
the society declared by
the legislative,then
the legislative is
CHANGED. For
that being, in effect,
the legislative whose
rules and laws are put
in execution, and
required to be obeyed, when
"OTHER LAWS" are set
up, and "OTHER RULES"
"PRETENDED" and
enforced than what the
legislative, CONSTITUTED
BY THE SOCIETY, HAVE
enacted, it is
plain that the
legislative "is
changed". WHOEVER
introduces >>>>NEW
laws, NOT
being thereunto
authorised,
by the fundamental
appointment
of the society, >>>>>>OR
"SUBVERTS THE OLD",
disowns and
overturns the power
by which they were
made, and so
sets up a new
legislative.
John
Locke #218.
Why, in such a
constitution as this,
the DISSOLUTION
of the government
in these cases is to
be imputed to the
prince is evident,
because he,
having the
force, treasure, and
offices of the State
to employ, and
often persuading
himself or being
flattered by others,
that, as supreme
magistrate, he is
incapable of control;
he alone is in a
condition to make
great advances towards
such "changes"
under
>>>"PRETENCE"
of lawful AUTHORITY,
and has it in his
hands to
terrify or suppress
opposers as
factious, seditious,
and enemies to
the government;
whereas no other part
of the legislative, or
people, is capable by
themselves to attempt
any alteration of the
legislative without
open and visible
rebellion, apt
enough to be taken
notice of, which,
when it prevails,
PRODUCES EFFECTS
"VERY LITTLE
DIFFERENT" from
"FOREIGN CONQUEST".
John
Locke #222.
"The reason why men
enter into society
is the preservation
of their PROPERTY;
and the end while they
choose and authorise a
legislative is that
there may be laws
made, and rules set,
as guards and fences
to the properties of
all the society, to
limit the power
and moderate the
dominion of every
part
and member of the
society. For since
it can NEVER
be supposed to be
the will of the
society that the
legislative should
have a power to
destroy that which
every one designs to
secure by entering
into society,
and for which the
people submitted
themselves to
legislators of their
own making: >>>WHENEVER
the LEGISLATORS
endeavour to take away
and destroy the
property of the
people, or to reduce
them to slavery under
ARBITRARY power,
they put themselves
into a "state of
war" with the
people..."
"...by this "BREACH
OF TRUST" they
"FORFEIT" the power
the people had put
into their hands for
quite contrary ends,
and it devolves to
the people, who
have a right to resume
their "original
liberty" (i.e. as one has
in the "state of
nature"),
and by the
establishment of a new
legislative (such as
they shall think fit),
provide for their own
safety and security, (APP Note: See
this in the
Declaration of
Independence)
which is the end for
which they are in
society.
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
founded ONLY 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.
John
Locke #227
..."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."
N.)
Power Of Granting
Exclusive Privileges
By Federal (or any)
Government "VOID"
And to the above
we present this fact:
NOWHERE in our
Constitutions or
"Original Compacts"
has any state or
federal government
been given the right
or power to grant "Exclusive
Privileges" to
themselves, to any
"one" or any group of
people, foreign
or domestic
It is then
a necessity that every
state and local
community act to
remove ALL
"Exclusive
Privileges".
Virginia
Ratifying
Conventions
6-16-1788:
MR. PENDLETON:"...Why
oppose this power?
Suppose it was
contrary to the sense
of their constituents
to grant
"EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES" to
citizens residing within
that place; the effect
would be directly in
opposition to what he
says. It could have "NO
OPERATION"
without the "LIMITS"
of "THAT DISTRICT".
Were Congress to make a
law granting them an "EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGE"of
trading to
the East Indies, it
could have"NO
EFFECT" the MOMENT
it would go without
"THAT PLACE"; for
their exclusive power is
confined
to "THAT
DISTRICT". Were
they to pass such a
law, it
would be "NUGATORY"; and
every member of the
community at large could
trade to the East Indies
as well as the citizens
of that district. This
exclusive power is limited
to "THAT
PLACE"solely, for
their own
preservation,
which all gentlemen
allow to be necessary."
2.)
Understanding that
"Freedom of
Contract" Does NOT
Apply to "Exclusive
Privileges".
A.)
Actual And Fictitious
Individuals
Corporations i.e.
"FICTITIOUS
INDIVIDUALS", must
never be considered the
same as real physical "ACTUAL
INDIVIDUALS";
Whether as a "description
of or definition in
law" or
otherwise.
In all cases, it is
necessary to make laws
to nullify,
remove, prohibit and
curb the collective
privileged powers
that such entities
possess;Whether
foreign or domestic.
B.)
Unconstitutional Laws
Can Never Set
Precedence
We will first
establish that the present
use or past use
of unconstitutional
powers, can
NEVER SET, NOR
be a MEANS to
SET PRECEDENCE
in ANY form of
law.
Whether it be
"case law" or newly
arrogated (so called,
but not)
constitutional law, or
civil law, to attempt
to establish a "PRETENSE
OF AUTHORITY".
Even the attempt of
the government to use
the ratifying
or amendment process is
VOID when used as a means
to allow the federal
government to
step outside the
delegated powers or to
ARROGATE ANY
new powers, as it was expressly
prohibited from
doing by even
"ONE STEP" (See Virginia
Ratifying Convention
6-16-1788).
The
Ratifying or
Amendment process
is a process that was
to be used ONLY
to make adjustments
within the DELEGATED
powers; "NOT"
to "ARROGATE NEW
POWERS" WHICH IT
WAS "EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITED".
C.)
Precedent and
Prerogative; New
Powers and Laws
Prohibited
a.) Did the
Founders step outside
the Constitution?
Yes:
b.) Some for bad purposes
such as in the "Alien
and Sedition Act"
signed by John Adams
as president. An act soundly
thrown down by
James Madison and
Thomas Jefferson
in in the "Virginia
and Kentucky
Resolutions" 1798; that reminded
John Adams of the
very limited
powers of the federal
government set forth in
the Virginia
Ratifying
Conventions 10 years
prior.
They have shown us by
their ACTUAL
EXAMPLE in those
resolutions
that: it is the "States
Duty" under their
"own authority" to
"NULLIFY" "ALL"
undelegated powers attempted by the
Federal Government.
c.) And others for
good purposes
such as Thomas Jefferson
in the Louisiana
Purchase,
that had expanded lands
controlled of the
federal government
beyond the 10
miles square
it is STILL constitutionally
limited to.
d.) Difference
between the two - Precedent
and Prerogative.
Here is the
"DIFFERENCE" between
these two, that
needs to be reviewed
in Common Law.
We will quote from
John Locke to
establish a foundation
in reasoning;
Locke
166:
>>>
..."...That the reigns
of "good
princes" have been
always most
dangerous to the
liberties of their
people."
"For when their successors,
managing the government
with different
thoughts,
would draw the actions
of those good
rulers into >>>"PRECEDENT"
and make them the
standard of "their"
>>>"PREROGATIVE"-- as
if what had
been done only
for the good
of the people was a
"right" in "them"
to do for the harm
of the people,"
And where we see
that President John
Adams was led
by a "corrupt"
legislature
to sign a unconstitutional
Alien and Sedition
Act against both
natural rights of
the freedom of
speech;
And an
unconstitutional law
by attempting to
grant the federal
government the power
over aliens within
the states;
As well as
CREATING "laws
and crimes powers
of prosecution" on people who break
laws they had NEWLY
created (See again
John Locke 214),
which they had been
given NO
DELEGATED POWERS and
NO AUTHORITY under the
Constitution TO
create:
Let's review those
limits in the Kentucky
Resolution 1798 as
Thomas Jefferson
Corrects The Federal
Government while
NULLIFYING their
powers:
#2.
Resolved,
That the Constitution
of the United States,
having DELEGATED
to Congress
a "power" to punish:
a.)
treason,
b.) counterfeiting the
securities and current
coin of the United
States,
c.) piracies, and
d.) felonies committed
on the high seas (APP: on the
High Seas ONLY; NOT
WITHIN the States),
and
e.) offenses against
the law of nations,
AND "NO" "OTHER
CRIMES", "WHATSOEVER";
and
it being true as
a general principle,
and one of the
amendments
to the Constitution
having also declared,
that "the powers
NOT
DELEGATED to
the United States by the
Constitution, not
prohibited by it to the
States, are
reserved to the
States respectively,
or to the people,"
therefore the act of
Congress, passed on the
14th day of July, 1798,
and intituled "An Act
in addition to the act
intituled An Act for
the punishment of
certain crimes against
the United States,"
as also the act
passed by them on the
day of June, 1798,
intituled "An Act to
punish frauds
committed on the bank
of the United States,"
(and
>>>>>
ALL THEIR "OTHER
ACTS" which "ASSUME
to CREATE",
"DEFINE", or "PUNISH
crimes",
"OTHER THAN THOSE SO
ENUMERATED" in the
Constitution,)are
"ALTOGETHER VOID",
and of "NO FORCE"; and
that the power to create,
define, and punish
such other crimes is
reserved, and, of
RIGHT, appertains
SOLEY and EXCLUSIVELY
to the respective STATES,
each within its
own
territory.
e.) We see
that President
Thomas Jefferson
(falling into the "good
princes"
catagory) seeing an
opportunity to expand
free and independent
republics and land for
private property
ownership, was acting as
a good ruler for
the people in
general -
whoever they may in
the future be.
What Does John Locke
say about "Good
Princes":
John
Locke 165.
"And therefore he that
will look into the
history of England will
find that prerogative
was always largest in
the hands of our wisest
and best princes,
because the people
observing the whole
tendency of their
actions to be the
public good,
or if any human frailty
or mistake (for princes
are but men, made as
others) appeared in some
small declinations from
that end, yet it was
visible the main of
their conduct tended
to nothing but the
care of the public.
The people, therefore,
finding reason to be
satisfied with these
princes, whenever they
acted without, or
contrary to the letter
of the law, acquiesced
in what they did, and
without the least
complaint,
let them enlarge their
prerogative as they
pleased, judging rightly
that they did nothing
herein to the prejudice
of their laws, since
they acted conformably
to the foundation and
end of all laws -- the
public good.
John Locke 166.
Such God-like princes,
indeed, had some title
to arbitrary power by
that argument that would
prove absolute monarchy
the best government, as
that which God Himself
governs the universe by,
because such kings
partake of His wisdom
and goodness. Upon this
is founded that saying,
>>>"That
the reigns of good
princes have been
always most
dangerous to the
liberties of their
people." For
when their
"successors", managing
the government with
different thoughts,
would draw the actions
of those good rulers
into precedent and
make them the standard
of their prerogative
-- as if what had been
done only for the good
of the people was a
right in them to
do for the harm of
the people, if they
so pleased --
it has often
occasioned contest, and
sometimes public
disorders, before
the people could
recover their original
right
and get that to be
declared not to be
"PREROGATIVE"
which truly was
NEVER so;
since it is impossible
anybody in the society
should ever have a right
to do the people harm,
though it be very
possible and reasonable
that the people should
not go about to
set any bounds to the
prerogative of those
kings or rulers who
themselves
transgressed not the
bounds of the public
good. For "prerogative
is nothing but the
power of doing public
good without a rule."
f.) But that
this one act or other
single act of good, should
NEVER be allowed the
MEANS to set a
"PRECEDENCE for a
PREROGATIVE of
POWER" against the
people or their
properties, OR to
place power or land
control into the
hands of government
OR those NOT
DELEGATED to manage
it, when the
"original intent"
was to make it
available for
"people" to settle
upon that land and
own "PRIVATE TITLE"
to it.
The purpose of
Jefferson's act was
the opportunity to
expand free
independent
republics for
private citizens to
develop and hold
"PRIVATE" PROPERTY;
>>>"NOT"
to expand the powers
or land ownership of
the federal
government, "NOR"
to create endless
management
bureaucracies
(federal, state and
local) that burden
citizens and
taxpayers;
"NOR" was it
for the empowerment
or creation
Exclusive
Privileges;All
soundly presented
against in the
Ratifying
Conventions of 1788
that defined the
peoples ORIGINAL
INTENT for free
government.
We can see
however, that "federal
lands"have "became
a tool of federal
power" through forced
taxation support
of union manned
FOREST BUREAUCRACIES
(US Forest Service and
Bureau of Land
Management) and
CONDEMNATION power NO
WHERE INTENDED over
Private Property;
A exercise of
"Exclusive Privileges"
both in management,
use, and a means to
manipulate local
communities through
"ENVIRONMENTAL
MANDATES" ; Further, as a
means to derive money
to support a
growing federally
manned bureaucracy
through government
contracts for
minerals and oil on
federal land.
D.)
Civil Case Law
Limited by Common Law:
Regardless of how
many times "case
law" has set a "supposed
precedence";When
NOT based upon the
foundations
of Common Law, or
the "ORIGINAL
COMPACT" made in the
creation of a
society, or a
LIMITED COMPACT
between societies
with existing
Compacts,THAT
"case law" or
"precedence" is NULL
and VOID;
There is NO
authority
that can make it more.
Even to try against
either the
Original Compact
or Common Law,
is to establish
>>>>"Force
without
authority"; Which is
the description of
tyranny.
All Laws must
have their
foundation in God
and Natures Law,
i.e. the Law of
Nature:
John
Locke 195."I
will not dispute "now"
whether princes are
exempt from the laws of
their country, but this
I am sure, they
owe subjection to
the laws of God and
Nature. Nobody,
NO power can exempt
them from the
obligations of that
eternal law. Those
are so great and so
strong in the case of
promises, that
Omnipotency itself can
be tied by them.
Grants, promises, and
oaths are bonds that
hold the Almighty,
whatever some flatterers
say to princes of the
world, who, all
together, with all their
people joined to them,
are, in comparison of
the great God, but as a
drop of the bucket, or a
dust on the balance -- inconsiderable,
nothing!
E.)
Common Law Still
Supreme
We know that Common
law was never
relinquished by any
part of the
Constitution and
that it is a "PREEXISTING"
Right "IN" the
PEOPLE as against any
State law as well as
federal:
Virginia
Ratifying
Convention 1788 -
George Nicholas:".....
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...."
"...A bill of rights
is only an
acknowledgment of the
"PREEXISTING"claim
to rights "IN" the
people.
They BELONG
to us
as much as if they had
been inserted in the
Constitution...."
And as such, are
reserved essential
natural rights,
the COMMON LAW
rights whether
acknowledged or not in
the Original Compact(s)
- i.e. Federal
Constitution or State
Constitutions, are
reserved and
cannot be removed, not
by federal government,
not by state
governments, not by
local governments.
F.)
Condemnation And
Imminent Domain Are
Void
The "taking of
property for public
USE" clause in the
Constitution, that was
created only for the
limited area within
the 10 miles square of
Washington DC, has
since been ARROGATED
to expand beyond the
10 mile LIMIT first
granted to the federal
government in the
Original Compact;
This ARROGATION of
power has been
incorrectly
interpreted as a
PRECEDENT to do harm
to Private Property
Holders by Federal
State Local County and
City governments; And
in doing so has
exceeded the end or
purpose of government
which is to protect
property, the
end and purpose for
which people have
entered society:
John Locke: and Samuel
Adams define this as:
"...giving up that for
which they entered
society to protect" as
"To much an absurdity
for any man to own":
Rights
of the Colonists:
"...Thirdly, The
supreme power cannot
Justly take from any
man, any part of his
property without his
consent,
in person
or by his
Representative.--
These are some of the
first principles of
natural law &
Justice, and the great
Barriers of all free
states,
and of the British
Constitution in
particular. It
is utterly
irreconcilable to
these principles,
and to many other
fundamental maxims of
the common law,
common sense and
reason, that a
British house of
commons, should have a
right, at pleasure, to
give and grant the
property of the
Colonists."
John
Locke #138:
"Thirdly, the supreme
power cannot take from
any man any part of
his property without
his own consent.
(APP Note: See
these exact words in
the Rights of the
Colonists)
For the preservation
of property
being the end of
government,
and that for which
men enter into
society,
it necessarily
supposes and requires
that the people should
have property, without
which they must be
supposed to lose
that by entering
into society which
was the end for
which they entered
into it; too
gross an absurdity for
any man to own.
See the
arrogation of power of
condemnation at the
civil war " VOID":
....(add)
G.)
Taking can NEVER be
Assumed to be a Power
of CONDEMNATION
a.)
NOR to be used for
anything but a
temporary use by
state, or federal,
when in an emergency
or war when necessary
for the "purpose" of "protecting
those very rights
and properties of
the owner" who
will "remain the
owner" after that "TEMPORARY"
"USE".
To think it
anything else
than "temporary"
would be to ignore
that the Constitution
has the Ratifying
Conventions to define
it's meaning; every
word of it; And that
clearly indicated by
James Madison and
Thomas Jefferson in
the Virginia and
Kentucky Resolutions,
to do anything to the
contrary would be to EXPOUND
on the GENERAL PHRASES
of the CONSTITUTION to
grant a power NOT
INTENDED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.
b.)
NOR
can it be used by the
federal government
outside Washington DC
to acquire land from
citizens; Which by the
constitution is
EXPRESSLY LIMITED
the federal
government to the 10
miles square of
Washington DC.
James
Madison:Virginia
Ratifying
Convention
6-16-1788:(speaking of the
limitations of the federal
government)"
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.
c.)
NOR used by
state or federal
governmentsas an
"excuse"
to allow the very
limited "precedent"
to be made into the
standard of "their"
"prerogative",
so to be used against
the properties of the
people.
d.) NOR used
by Any private, state,
federal or foreign
Exclusive Privileged
Entity to grant
power over the
properties of the people
or their properties;
Exclusive privileges
being that which should
not even exist.
e.) NOR used
without a persons WILLING
consent; and NOT
a "INTIMIDATED
willing consent":
As when imminent
domain is
attempted by
saying the government,
or a exclusive
privilege, like a power
company, forcing it's
way through your land, is
going to take it
"anyway", so
the person agrees under
this pressure to give a
"so called"
"willing consent", which
amounts to "NO
consent":
See
John Locke 186: when he explains
that ANY "PROMISE
OR CONSENT EXTORTED
BY FORCE", can
"NEVER" be
considered
"CONSENT"; "NOR"
does any such
"promise or consent"
convey "ANY" right
or title:
Locke
#186.
The conqueror, it is
true, usually by
the force he has
over them, compels
them,
with a sword at their
breasts, to stoop to
his conditions, and
submit to such a
government as he
pleases to afford
them; but the inquiry
is, what right he has
to do so? If it be
said they submit by
their own "consent",
then this allows
their "own consent"
to be necessary to
give the conqueror a
title to rule over
them.
>>>>>>>It
remains only
to be considered
whether "promises",
extorted by force,
"without right", can
be thought
"consent", and how
far they "bind".
>>>>>>>To
which I shall say,
they "bind"
>>>"NOT AT
ALL";
because whatsoever
another gets
from me by force,
I still retain the
right of,
and he is obliged
presently to restore.
He that forces my
horse from me ought
presently to restore
him, and
I have still a
"RIGHT" to "RETAKE"
him.
By the same reason, he
that forced a promise
from me ought
presently to restore
it -- i.e., quit me of
the obligation of it;
or I may resume it
myself -- i.e., choose
whether I will perform
it. For the law of
Nature laying an
obligation on me,
only by the rules she
prescribes, cannot
oblige me by the
violation of her
rules;
such is the
extorting "ANYTHING"
from me by force.
NOR does it "AT
ALL" alter the case,
to
say I "gave
my promise",
no
more than it excuses
the force, and
passes the right,
when I put my hand in
my pocket and deliver
my purse myself to a
thief who demands it
with a pistol at my
breast.
f.)Samuel Adams
leaves no question as
to what this meant:
Samuel
Adams - Absolute
Rights of the
Colonists:
... "THIRDLY,
The supreme
power (i.e. the
LEGISLATIVE) >>>"CANNOT"Justly
>>>"TAKE"
from >>>"ANY"
MAN,
>>>"ANY"
PART of his
property without
his
>>>"CONSENT",
in person
>>>OR
(VERY
IMPORTANT)
by his
>>>"REPRESENTATIVE".
-- These are some of
the >>>"FIRST
PRINCIPLES" of
natural law &
Justice, and
the "GREAT BARRIERS
of ALL FREE STATES",
and of the British
Constitution in
particular.
It
is "utterly
irreconcileable to
these principles", and
to "many other fundamental
maxims of the COMMON
LAW", common sense
and reason, that
a British house of
commons, should have a
right, at pleasure, to
give and grant the
property of the
Colonists."
Which was
Derived from John
Locke on CIVIL
GOVERNMENT:
John
Locke: 138. "THIRDLY,
the supreme power CANNOT
"TAKE" from ANY man
ANY part of his
property without
his
>>>>>>>"OWN""CONSENT".
(APP Note: See
these exact words in
the Rights of the
Colonists)
For the PRESERVATION
of PROPERTY
being the END
of government,
and THAT for which (WHY)
men enter into
society, it necessarily
supposes and requires
that the people should
have PROPERTY,
without which they
must be supposed to
lose that by entering
into society which
was the END for
which they entered
into it; >>>too
gross an ABSURDITY
for any man to own."
It says "CONSENT".
"NO consent", "NO
take" "NO
condemn".
See
anything about "Just
Compensation?" Of
course not.
g.) The "Take and
Compensation" Clause
in the Constitution
was a power LIMITED
within the 10 miles
square of
Washington DC for
a "limited
purpose" "THERE"
within "THAT PLACE
ONLY".
See Supremacy Clause Virginia Ratifying
Convention 6-16-1788; This is a SPECIAL
"LIMITED" power;
Not under the general
powers of legislation.
And the federal
government AND THE
STATE REPRESENTATIVES
are expressly prohibited
from ARROGATING
ANY NEW POWER; The
Amendment process is for
making corrections in
the DELEGATED
powers of the ORIGINAL
COMPACT;
NOT as a means to
ARROGATE NEW POWERS.
Virginia
Ratifying Convention
6-16-1788:
George
Nicholas:
"... The
clause which was
affectedly called the
sweeping clause
contained "NO NEW
grant of power"
Edmund
Pendleton: "...
With respect to the
necessity of the ten
miles square being
superseded by the
subsequent clause,
which gives them power
to make all laws which
shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing
powers, and
all other powers VESTED
by this Constitution in
the government of the
United States, or in any
department or officer
thereof, I
understand that
clause as NOT going
a "single step
beyond" the
"DELEGATED powers".
What can it act upon?
Some power given by THIS
Constitution.If
they should be about
to pass a law in
consequence of this
clause, they
must pursue some of the
"DELEGATED powers",
but
can by "NO MEANS"
depart from them,
(N)OR
"ARROGATE" "ANY
NEW" powers; for
the PLAIN
LANGUAGE of
the clause is, to give
them power to pass laws
in order to give
"effect" to the "DELEGATED"
powers".
h.)
The principles are
found in this document
as well;
Patrick
Henry: "...One
of our first
complaints, under
the former government,
was the quartering
(i.e. "TAKING"
PROPERTY TO QUARTER
THEM)
of troops upon us.
This was one
of the PRINCIPLE
reasons for
dissolving the
connection with
Great Britain.
James
Madison: "...He
says that one ground of
complaint, at the
beginning of the
revolution, was, that a
standing army was quartered
upon us. This
was not the WHOLE
complaint. We
complained because it
was done without the
"LOCAL
Authority" of
this country
without the
"CONSENT" of "the
PEOPLE" of
America.
i.) Again review,
Common law is a
right "IN" the
people and
remains;
Virginia
Ratifying Convention
6-16-1788 - George
Nicholas: "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."...
"A bill of rights is
only an acknowledgment
of the
"PREEXISTING" claim
to rights "IN" the
PEOPLE.
They belong
to us
as much as if
they had been inserted
in the Constitution.
j.) The founders were
clear that NO
REGULATION would
be made that MAY
effect the
citizens of the UNION
AT LARGE
Mr.
PENDLETON.
Mr. Chairman, THIS
CLAUSE does
"NOT"
give Congress power to
impede the operation of
ANY PART
of the Constitution,(N)or
to make ANY
REGULATION that
may affect the
interests of the
citizens of the "Union
at large". But
it gives them power over
the local police of the
place, so as to be
secured from any
interruption in their
proceedings.
Notwithstanding the
violent attack upon it,
I believe, sir, this is
the "fair construction
of the clause". It
gives them power of
exclusive
legislation in any
case within "THAT"
district.
What is the meaning of
this? What is it opposed
to? Is it opposed to the
general powers of the
federal legislature, or
to those of the state
legislatures? I
understand it as opposed
to the legislative power
of that state where
it shall be.
k.) This restricts
property from being
taken from even those
convicted of crimes.
(See also John Locke
);
WRIT OF ATTAINER:
The United States
Constitution FORBIDS
WRIT OF ATTAINDER under
Article I, Section 9.
CONSTITUTION:
Article I, Section 9:
"....No Bill of
Attainder or ex post
facto Law shall be
passed."
It is
just as "absurd",
as John Locke puts it,
to think that the
government which has
been restricted from
taking property even
from criminals; That
it would have been
given the power to
TAKE from the citizens
of the "Union at
large" for ANY reason
and KEEP it or give it
to others.
l.) States and Federal
governments must abide
by these laws, to "be
of" authority;
Or else any
legislation to the
contrary is VOID;
If enforced, it is a
force used without
authority,
and defined as an act
of Tyranny and
Rebellion of the
laws and
an act of WAR
against the people:
See John Locke on
Civil Government
when either executive or
legislative acts beyond
the original
authorities granted
it by the
people who formed it in
the Original
Compact:
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 founded
only in the
constitutions (i.e.
"ORIGINAL COMPACTS")
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".
John
Locke: 227.
In both the fore
mentioned 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 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.
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"."
3.) "True
Free Trade" Cannot
Exist with the
Existence of State
Born Monopolies and
Cartels; i.e.
PRIVATIZED SOCIALISM;
A fact very
clearly understood
by those actual
individualswhen they
go against a
corporation in a court
of law;
The individual with
limited or non existent
financial resources,
represented by
himself or maybe
an attorney, will find
himself overwhelmed
by 3, 5 or more
attorneys and a host
of advisors and minds
on the other side of
the court;
Where every word is
construed to the
favor of the
collective;
It is no
wonder that the
definitions and
precedence ruled in our
courts have no
resemblance of that
intended by the
Founders.
And that competition is
near nonexistent from
individuals against the
greater financial
might of the
State BornPrivate
Exclusive Privileged
Collectives.
Sheer numbers and
financial clout negate
competition against them
in all but a few
instances;
These are Exclusive
FINANCIAL SOCIETIES; Not
local Societies
represented by
representatives of the
local public's choosing;
Yet as they grow, dependency
upon them increases,
and competition and
trade slowly gives way
to those larger
financial PRIVATIZED
SOCIALIST SOCIETIES.
4.) Effects
of "State Born"
"Monopoly and
Cartels" on
True Free Trade and
Independent Business.
a.) Making that which
is illegal, legal.
What is the
difference of 100
independent business
men using their
combined financial might
to establish 100 stores
and agree between
themselves what prices
should be charged; An
Act which is a
criminal offense of
CARTEL;
And that of 100
members of a
Corporation, i.e. a
state born exclusive
privilege of "legal"
Cartel, using
their combined financial
might to establish 100
stores and agree
between themselves
what prices should
be charged?
Nothing.
However, where
government would jail
the first group for
price fixing as a
"ILLEGAL"
Cartel, That
same government
awards
"Exclusive Privileges"
to the
Corporation to
continue operations
and calls it a "LEGAL"
activity of a
state approved
Collective.
This can be compared
to gas stations in the
oil industries.
b.) "OVERLAP"
of Exclusive
Privileged entities.
Compound this with
the proximity of
other exclusive
privileged entities,
and the death of true
free enterprise is
certain;
Independent free trade
is both limited and
controlled by the
exclusive privileged,
who need only to look
down the street to their
so called competitor to
equal his price
and blanket the market
to their "collective"
dictates.
Illustrated
Graph:
c.) Effects of
Undelegated
Government
Bureaucracies and
Unions (
Undelegated as
under the "Original
Constitutional
Compact(s)").
Now let us say we
expand government, by
allowing Unions to
dictate government
wages to attract
people into undelegated
bureaucracies
granting them the
power to expand yet
further at their own
dictates.;
(That is Undelegated,
as not granted
under the Original
Compact -
Constitution (or
under state
constitutions) - which
it was not intended
that the federal
government was ever to
exceed the 10 miles
square of Washington
DC)
This, not only
reduces the private
sector business, but
also creates an ever
expanding vacuum of
costly regulations to
support the regulatory
bureaucracies;
Further, it begins to
change what should
be limited public
"needful" "SERVITUDE",
into "life
time""needless"
regulatory "PROFESSIONS".
5.) Effects
of "Privatized
Governments", - i.e.
"Private State Born
Exclusive Privileged
Collectives", "Are"
Privatized Socialism;
Which are: All
types of Corporations,
including City
Corporations and
the effect on Local
County Legislative
Governments,
citizens, private
property and
independent business.
a.) City
Corporations and
Counties forcing
people into their "Corporate"
"City"
district through "ANNEXATION".
b.) Also use of
county laws from exclusive
privilegedcity
interest
through ZONING LAWS;
Soto PROHIBIT
new citiesand
populated areas and
counties
from even forming.
Laws changing
which constantly
raises the "population
bar" in which an area
can become a county so
to all but make new
counties or towns form
and the ability to be
allowed to regulate
"themselves" impossible.
This abuse of "refusing
large districts of
people"wherever they
that wished it,
was listed as one
of the definitions
of and an
ACT of "TYRANNY" in the
Declaration of
Independence.
Declaration
of Independence
1776
- Grievance #3:
"He has refused to
pass other laws for
the accommodation of
LARGE DISTRICTS of
people,
unless those people
would relinquish the
right of
representation in the
legislature; a right
inestimable to them
and formidable
to TYRANTS only."
6.) The
Differences Between
Privately Owned
Companies, and
Corporations.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation and http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/162.asp
Common Law recognized
Corporations as
Exclusive privileges
and limited them from
title in water;
Holding that they were
limited to beneficial
use in water
that could not be left
in non use for long or
rights would be lost;
This is as opposed to
individuals right
of title which so
long as not
abandoned, could
not loose the right
from "non use" as it
was a right of TITLE;
the water was
"attached to the
land".
a.) Personal ownership
and responsibility;
Personal Ownership
provides a
responsibility that is
in many cases removed by
the collective powers of
a state born Exclusive
Privilege.
b.) "Limited
Liability";
"Limited
Liability" is what many
fall upon to bolster
their advocacy to
corporations.
However this is a
Band-Aid to another
problem; and can be
corrected by simply
setting limits to
ridiculous financial
damage suits and
claims;
Instead of creating
whole state born
Exclusive Privileged
entities to limit the
effects of weak
liability laws that
are allowed to be
misused by
legislatures, judges,
judgments and the
courts.
Also, the fact that
there even exists large
private collectives,
creates a imbalance in
responsibility and
punishment; If a
"actual" individual was
indeed libel for some
act, $1000.oo may be
either adequate
punishment or pay
restitution; But a
corporation under the "legal
description" as a
"individual"
consisting of 2000
actual individuals
who is liable that must
pay $1,000.oo, can
hardly consider .50
cents per each of it's
individuals a deterrent
to any criminal offense;
The person wishing
restitution against a
large collective would
see that as no
meaningful restitution
either; So
the liability
becomes distorted. This is then
compounded by Insurance
companies and lawyers
allowed to
capitalize on the
situation. And
then you have the
occurrences of million
dollar suits
against corporate
companies for having hot
coffee being spilt in
laps by customers
as in the MacDonalds
restaurant case; Can we
suppose that a small one
man mobile coffee shop
can be tried and
compared to the same
million dollar liability
who has $10,000 in
business assets and
$150,000 in home assets?
It presents that
there needs to be
limits and standards,
but so long as there are
State Born Exclusive
Privileges of Cartel,
which are large private
socialist styled
organizations, justice
will be ill perceived
and dictated to the
fullest extent by
opportunists in the
field of attorneys.
Therefor it is
clear that state
born Exclusive
Privileges must be
REMOVED from all
societies.
First it is
necessary to remove the
"invented need",
for privileges, arising
from ill defined
and exaggerated
liability issues.
c.) "Debt Liability
Limitations"
As far back as the
Magna Carta 1215,
liability of a farmer
could not be a means to
invade his home, farm
property, mule or plow
which he made his
living.
This limited the debt
and placed the
responsibility on the
lender not to lend
beyond the borrowers means
or trust.
Biblical laws that had
been established in
societies, forgave all
debts "every
calendar 7 years"
for the entire populous,
this made financially
enslaving someone
through debt impossible
and placed the
responsibility upon
the lender not to
lend more than can be
reasonably be paid back
within the remaining
time left of those 7
years.
d.) national and
local debt liability
upon citizens
Thomas Jefferson
indicated favorably for
such limits to debt, if
not by a universal
calendar time, by limits
for each individual;
Thomas
Jefferson: To James
Madison Paris, Sep. 6,
1789:
"...To render this
conclusion palpable by
example, suppose
that Louis XIV. and XV.
had contracted debts
in the name of the
French nation to the
amount of 10.000
milliards of livres and
that the whole had been
contracted in Genoa. The
interest of this sum
would be 500 milliards,
which is said to be the
whole rent-roll, or nett
proceeds of the
territory of France.
Must the present
generation of men have
retired from the
territory in which
nature produced them,
and ceded it to the
Genoese creditors? No.
They have the same
rights over the soil on
which they were
produced, as the
preceding generations
had. They derive these
rights not from
their predecessors,
but from nature.
They
then and their soil
are by nature clear
of the debts of
their predecessors.
Again suppose Louis XV.
and his contemporary
generation had said to
the money lenders of
Genoa, give us money
that we may eat, drink,
and be merry in our day;
and on condition you
will demand no interest
till the end of 19.
years, you shall then
forever after receive an
annual interest of
')">(*) 12.'5 per
cent. The money is lent
on these conditions, is
divided among the
living, eaten, drank,
and squandered. Would
the present generation
be obliged to apply the
produce of the earth and
of their labour to
replace their
dissipations? Not
at all.
I
suppose that the
received opinion,that
the public debts of
one generation devolve
on the next, has
been suggested by our
seeing habitually in
private life that he who
succeeds to lands is
required to pay the
debts of his ancestor or
testator, without
considering that this
requisition is municipal
only, not moral, flowing
from the will of the
society which has found
it convenient to
appropriate the lands
become vacant by the
death of their occupant
on the condition of a
paiment of his debts; but
that between society
and society, or
generation and
generation there is
no municipal
obligation,
no umpire but the law
of nature.
We seem not to have
perceived that, by the
law of nature, one
generation is to another
as one independant
nation to another."
The interest of the
national debt of France
being in fact but a two
thousandth part of
it's rent-roll, the
payment of it is
practicable enough; and
so becomes a
question merely of honor
or expediency. But
with respect to future
debts; would it not be
wise and just for
that nation to declare
in the constitution they
are forming that neither
the legislature, nor
the nation itself
can validly contract
more debt, than they
may pay within their
own age, or within
the term of 19.
years?And
that all future
contracts shall be
deemed void as to what
shall remain unpaid at
the end of 19. years
from their date?
This would put the
lenders, and the
borrowers also, on
their guard.
By reducing too the
faculty of borrowing
within its natural
limits, it
would bridle the spirit
of war, to
which too free a
course has been
procured by the
inattention of money
lenders to this
law of nature, that
succeeding generations
are
not responsible for
the preceding...."
e.)
Sanctity of Property
being apart from Man's
Employ, Service or
Libel Actions
In John Locke's
Second Treaties on Civil
Government , Locke
presents the sanctity in
private property; That
though the government in
protecting the greater
whole of the people can
command a man into the
mouth of a cannon, the
government could not
touch one farthing of
his property, as
one had nothing to
do with the other,
Where his life could
be sacrificed for
the survival of
society, his
property HAD NOTHING
to do with it;
John
Locke #139: "...but
yet we see that neither
the sergeant
that could command a
soldier to march up
to the mouth of a
cannon, or stand in
a breach where he is
almost sure to
perish, can
command that soldier to
give him one penny
of his money; nor
the general
that can condemn him
to death for deserting
his post, or not
obeying the most
desperate orders,cannot
yet
with all his absolute
power of life and
death dispose of
one farthing of that
soldier's estate, or
seize one jot of his
goods; whom yet
he can command
anything, and hang for
the least
disobedience. Because
such a blind obedience
is necessary to that
end for which the
commander has his
power -- viz., the
preservation of the
rest,
but the disposing of
his goods "HAS
NOTHING to do with
it".
The Constitution
recognized this
limitation in the
amendments which
prevented the government
from taking the property
of a criminal:
WRIT OF ATTAINDER:
The United States
Constitution FORBIDS
WRIT OF ATTAINDER
under Article I,
Section 9. This
restricts property
from being taken from
even those convicted
of crimes.
Constitution
Article I, Section 9
"....No Bill of
Attainder or ex post
facto Law shall be
passed."
And though it is
presented that in crime
there are two
restitution's that can
be granted a victim, one
of criminal and the
other of
restitution or
reparation to the
victim, these are
founded in common law (See John Locke #10
& #11), as that which is
always balanced with "REASON"
which "is that law" (See John
Locke #6); limited to
Original Compacts
and Form of
Government Agreed
Upon (See
John Locke #239); This
reason and the
understanding of
limitations set down by
Original Compacts
of governments that
define the unchanging
principles of law
which is the construction of
REPUBLICS |
