PH explains American vs. European Views on Relation Between People and Civil Government

[The video is only 2 minutes & 9 seconds long.]

Under the European model, the people are the subjects of the King or the State and are subject to the Will of the King or the State.

But the Framers of the American Constitution implemented the radically different conception that The People are the original source of political authority (Federalist No. 22, last para). The American People CREATED the federal government when they ratified the US Constitution. The federal government is not a party to the Constitution – it is merely the creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms.

But Americans are losing the vision our Framers implemented and are reverting back to the European Model where the People are the subjects of the government and must obey the will of the government.

April 5, 2015 - Posted by Publius Huldah | Creature of the Compact | American and European models of civil government, Constitution created the federal government, Creature of the compact, Divine Right of kings, relation between People and government, The People are the original source of political power

18 Comments »

[…] More… […]

LikeLike

Pingback by Publius Huldah explains American vs. European views on relation between People and Government | NCRenegade | April 6, 2015 | Reply
THIS is great for this minute!! Sure explains a great deal.

PH, those dear, expressive hands. God love you. Oh, and how He does!

LikeLike

Comment by Carol Boggs | April 5, 2015 | Reply
A federal jurisdiction is alive and well in Oregon. It has subtly taken the place of the Legislative jurisdiction of the State of Oregon. This federal jurisdiction is known as “this state”. It also is known as “the state” and “said state”. Note the lack of capitalization of the letter ‘s’. Proper English required that when referring to a proper noun in this manner the ‘S’ must be capitalized. So one must conclude that it is not referring to Oregon, the 33rd State of the Union. A look at ORS 131.205 reveals that it means: “the land and the water and the airspace above the land and the water with respect to which the State of Oregon has Legislative Jurisdiction”. The key word in that def. is the word ‘respect’ which tells me that there are two jurisdictions in Oregon, ie. “this state” and the “State of Oregon”.

A voter registration card requires you to acknowledge that you are in “this state” when you sign the card for the jurat reads the same or similar to the #2 at USC 28, Section 1746. A flag of the same type and style that adorns the Executive Office of the President of the United States also stands in the foyer of not only the Sec. of State’s office but also the Governor’s office, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Oregon Department of Revenue, both houses of the Legislature, the Oregon Supreme Court and various other departments.

Attorneys, when they wish to do business in all the courts of ‘this state’ they must submit a written oath to the State Court Administrator that “”…in the practice of law the applicant will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state. I have yet to find the Constitution of “this state”.

Oregon law in 1923 required the teaching of the United States and Oregon Constitutions from 8th grade through 12th grade and in all 4 years of college. This has been codified at ORS 336.057 and 067. A review of our schools curriculum says this is not being done.

By keeping the people of Oregon ignorant of ‘who’ and ‘where’ they are it is rather simple for ‘color of law’ to prevail.

The significance of the above is that: If you vote in Oregon you have told “this state” that you are a territorial U.S. citizen and are a ‘resident alien’ with “…respect to which the State of Oregon has Legislative jurisdiction.” You have no Constitutional Rights and are merely a subject citizen similar to those in England and other parts of the world.

That’s how it’s done in Oregon. How is it done in your State?

LikeLike

Comment by Douglas R. Smith | April 5, 2015 | Reply
- It it a great tragedy that you waste your time, and deprive your Country of the benefit of your assistance, by barking up these wrong trees. You are barking up every wrong tree out there! You have been listening to Rubbish.
  
  I wonder if the purveyors of this Rubbish are progressives trying to neutralize people who otherwise would be valuable allies; or whether they are mere conceited fools. It doesn’t matter – they cause great harm.
  
  My advice: close the books on what you have been doing. Get a copy of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and read them. Over & over until you know what they say.
  
  That is a good Foundation.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 | Reply
  - I read from both the U.S. Constitution, the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Revised Statutes weekly if not on a daily basis. I can only derive an opinion from what I read in the Oregon Revised Statutes, the Constitutions, and court decisions concerning them. If what they say cast a bad light upon a profession dear to you what can I say in rebuttal.
    
    I have plans to file a Writ of Mandamus in the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon Supreme Court Justices must hear a mandamus under Article VII original, which is the original jurisdiction of the Oregon Legislature. In the Writ I will be arguing that the Article VII amendment to the Oregon Constitution in 1910 is void because it amends the Oregon Constitution in several additional places and was only brought to the people of Oregon for a vote once in 1910. A little matter of ‘single subject matter’. See the Oregon Constitution at Article IV, Section 20. This will bring back the original court system and the people of Oregon will have Constitutional courts again and not legislative courts under the jurisdiction of ‘this state’.
    
    All attorneys, being in ‘this state’, will not put their name to such a writ for obvious reasons so I must solicit the help of an honest and sincere attorney from another State and put my name to it as a Pro Se litigant. I will be arguing that Article VII amended of the Oregon Constitution is void of law because it violates the Oregon Constitution’s single subject rule. It effectively amends the Oregon Constitution in more than one place and each place amended must be brought to a vote before the people of Oregon. It was voted on only once in 1910.
    
    I am a fifth generation Oregonian and an American conservative and will do everything in my power to conserve “…this Constitution for the United States of America.”. See the Preamble to the post-factum titled Constitution of the United States. In my humble opinion the United States Constitution should have been titled “The Constitution for the United States of America” for reasons quite obvious to me. Perhaps, you may wish to research this and find out when and why it was titled ‘The Constitution of the United States”. Am I still barking up the wrong tree and spewing so much rubbish or are my endeavors worthy of a little consideration.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Douglas R. Smith
    
    LikeLike
    
    Comment by Douglas R. Smith | April 6, 2015 | Reply
    - Well, it is difficult to impossible to figure out what you are talking about. Your arguments don’t make sense. And blaming the people who can’t figure out what you are talking about won’t help your case.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2015 | Reply
      - Let’s pick a subject that is of interest to both of us, that being the threat of a convention to rewrite the United States Constitution. I would think we could be in agreement that there are basically three types of people in America. Those that are knowledgeable of the Constitution, those that are ignorant of its content, and those that don’t give a damn.
        
        Now, those that are knowledgeable of the Constitution say that the responsibility of our Federal Government is clearly expressed and all we need to do is educate the ignorant and become a majority and put the governments (State and Federal) back within the Constitution’s Framework. Those that are ignorant are easily manipulated and swayed by those that wring their hands and cry ” the Constitution isn’t working just look at the Judicial system, look at our immigration policies, on and on ad nauseam. Then, there are those that still don’t give a damn.
        
        It is understandable that you and others would not make sense of the situation here in Oregon until you are knowledgeable of Oregon political history over the past 130 or so years. I am certainly willing to engage in meaningful dialog and educate you and your following for I feel that the situation in Oregon is similar in the other 49 States.
        
        If I may take the liberty and ask you a question(s) that is of grave concern to me then you may start to see where I am coming from. First, I must preface a few facts.
        
        In Oregon, as in the other States, several prerequisites for becoming a Law Enforcement Officer are: That you are a high school graduate and that you take an oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and of your State. Now, if the police officers, sheriffs, etc. have not fulfilled the mandated statutory requirements of a high school diploma (in Oregon at ORS 336.057) the initial question that comes to mind is: Are they high school graduates? If not, then surely they do not meet the prerequisite of being high school graduates. Are they acting under color of law or in disguise? Secondly, when they took the oath to uphold the Constitutions and are ignorant of the content therein, are they committing a crime? That crime being the class A misdemeanor of False Swearing. If they know of the Constitutions and choose to violate their oath is that not the crime of Perjury of Oath which is a class C felony?
        
        What about the Legislators, Governor etc. ?
        
        An inquiring mind wishes to know. Will you enter into a meaningful dialog? On this post or in a more personal venue? Your choice for you have my email address.
        
        Again, respectfully submitted, DRS
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Douglas R. Smith | April 6, 2015 | Reply
        
        I don’t claim to know anything about Oregon.
        
        But I know litigation, trial and appellate, civil and criminal. I know it from formal study and from decades of actually handling litigation for others. When you speak about litigation, I can not follow what you are saying. Which does not bode well for your winning your lawsuit.
        
        But of course, we can talk about the federal Constitution. But I don’t argue about it.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2015 | Reply
“Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” ~Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address 1801

Our form of government is unique and too many Americans have been taught antithetical foreign principles. And once taught, most refuse to let go even after being shown they are espousing Marxist or Monarchist principles. A truth they are going to learn one way or the other, and unfortunately for the rest of us, it’s one they insist on learning the hard way.

“The first remark that I shall make upon this subject is, that an education in our own, is to be preferred to an education in a foreign country. The principle of patriotism stands in need of the reinforcement of prejudice, and it is well known that our strongest prejudices in favour of our country are formed in the first one and twenty years of our lives.” ~Benjamin Rush, Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic 1798

A shame how quickly Americans allowed our schools to become foreign embassies.

LikeLike

Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | April 5, 2015 | Reply
- Yet only a handful will point out the obvious – that all the public schools should be closed down. Replace them with home schools, church schools, private schools, and privately run charity schools.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 6, 2015 | Reply
There is a well armed population of Americans willing to defend the concept of the social contract and the primacy of the US constitution. It is only the elected false representatives of the people straying from those principles with usurpation of inalienable rights.

LikeLike

Comment by robert | April 5, 2015 | Reply
- But it seems that so many “conservative” Americans are too ignorant, lazy and stupid to do anything except vote for the candidates who tickle their ears. And they won’t read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. That’s what they hire politicians to do – so they don’t have to do it.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 | Reply
When the government is the creature of the people, how is it that the court the dismiss the people for lack of standing?

LikeLike

Comment by llotter2013 | April 5, 2015 | Reply
- Standing IS an essential Principle of Jurisprudence. I’ll illustrate:
  
  Say you NEVER mow your yard, you have hundreds of old tires and rusty cars all over your yard, garbage heaps, etc. Say you live in one State and I live in another State. I file a lawsuit against you in your State complaining about the health hazards of your yard, how you are depressing property values, etc.
  
  Your lawyer will move to dismiss my lawsuit against you for “lack of standing”. Your yard doesn’t affect me!
  
  Only people in your neighborhood and surrounding area have “standing” to complain about your yard – the condition of your yard does affect them.
  
  So that is The Principle of Dismissing cases for lack of standing. A Plaintiff must have an “interest” in the subject of the litigation.
  
  Citizens have filed lawsuits in federal court complaining about the federal government’s violations of this or that. They filed lawsuits challenging obama’s status as an natural born citizen. These cases are typically dismissed by the federal courts for “lack of standing”. Basically, the federal courts have said the Plaintiff doesn’t allege the particular interest which allows him to proceed with the litigation.
  
  We have a great many problems in our Country – one of them is the modern day mindset of the American People that the solution to every problem with government is TO FILE A LAWSUIT AND LET THE FEDERAL JUDGES DECIDE THE ISSUE.
  
  But our Framers NEVER said the solution to such problems is to file a lawsuit. That is merely our modern day statist mindset where we don’t want to take responsibility for dealing with problems ourselves – we want to shove them on to federal judges and have THEM decide.
  
  What our Framers told us to do is:
  1. elect more faithful representatives who will nullify the acts of the usurpers; and
  2. States and the People should refuse to comply with unconstitutional laws.
  
  Don’t file lawsuits! That’s the cowardly way out. But that is the modern day mindset.
  
  Re the dismissals of the federal lawsuits asserting obama is not an NBC.
  
  At first, I was solidly on the side of the plaintiffs and was enraged when the federal courts dismissed the actions for lack of standing. BUT THEN, the light came on in my head and I recollected that the federal courts have no power to remove obama from office. Only Congress has the power to remove obama from office. His ineligibility to serve as President is a “POLITICAL QUESTION” for Congress to handle. And sadly, we elect spineless ignoramuses to Congress who won’t do what is right.
  
  So, it all falls back on us. And I see no change: American “conservatives” are still gaga over ignorant men who demonstrate no understanding of our two Founding documents – but who said or did something they like – and so they are all for them.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 | Reply
Worth repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, ….

” … The federal government is not a party to the Constitution – it is merely the creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. …”

… and when fully internalized by the current electorate the restoration of the Constitutional Republic can/will begin …

LikeLike

Comment by slcraignbc | April 5, 2015 | Reply
- Well, of course, I am paraphrasing our Framers, those are their words…..
  
  So HOW do we get the electorate to rediscover this? You are right – unless they rediscover that Principle – we are doomed.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 | Reply
Amen, people talk about NWO, liberty is the NWO, but people are so ignorant and gullible to the old world order.

LikeLike

Comment by Rob John | April 5, 2015 | Reply
- Ummmmm, the New World Order is “liberty”?
  
  What do you mean by “Liberty”? In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy redefined liberty to mean freedom from the moral laws: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/judicial-abuse-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-abortion-sexual-orientation-gay-marriage/
  
  Is THAT what you mean? Freedom from the moral laws?
  
  Or do you mean Freedom from personal responsibility?
  
  Or something else? What?
  
  The classic view – on which our Framers built – was that “liberty” means that condition of mankind which exists only with a civil government with extremely limited and defined powers such as the one created in our federal Constitution of 1787.
  
  Sigh, I knew it was too good to be true when I saw you “liked” my post.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Comment by Publius Huldah | April 5, 2015 | Reply