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.

 

       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, and that restrain governments, is what has been lost to the courts, and it is necessary to reestablish.



       f.)Exclusive Privileges in light of Unions and Corporations.

One excuse for corporate limited liability was to protect personal property liability, which was by common law already protected; A common ploy of government is to sell the need for a protection you already possess in Common Law.

 was to balance the existence of Unions, effects on Companies

The However this worsens the situation by allowing the creation of one state born exclusive privilege, then add another state born exclusive privilege to combat the first.

Granted, that the beginning of the problem was wages given of large companies that created a growing labor industry not unlike slavery, with wages that gave no chance of betterment; or similar dependency of the ever encompassing corporations having at that time no "minimum wage" laws which would have solved the largest part of that problem as it does today;



       g.)The "Union excuse" however created another problem - Maximum Wages:

"MAXIMUM WAGES" (NOT minimum wages) i.e. also known as PREVAILING WAGES....




7.)WAGES and REASON



A.) The Principle

Let us review the PRINCIPLE behind wages from the "Absolute Rights of the Colonists" by Samuel Adams: (derived from John Locke on Civil Government)


"Absolute Rights of the Colonists" Samuel Adams: