What the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

One of the silliest of the many unsupported claims made by those lobbying for an Article V convention is that our Framers said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution.¹

It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that their claim makes as much sense as saying that since people violate the Ten Commandments, God should amend the Ten Commandments.²

And since none of our Framers said such a silly thing, the convention lobby can’t produce a quote where it was said.

Even so, some have believed it and repeated it to others. Americans! We must demand that people prove their claims before we believe what they tell us.

I will show you original source documents, and you can see for yourself what our Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution.

Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787

James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted. He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is.

Madison’s Journal shows what our Framers said at the convention about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution:

♦ Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787: the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision.”

♦George Mason said on June 11, 1787: The Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective,” as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be. “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent…The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution [i.e., a defect] calling for amendmt.” [boldface mine] ³

♦Alexander Hamilton said on Sep. 10, 1787: amendments remedy defects in the Constitution. ⁴

The Federalist Papers

In Federalist No. 43 at 8, Madison said the purpose of amendments to the Constitution is to repair “discovered faults” and “amendment of errors”; and “amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience.

In Federalist No. 85 (13^th para), Hamilton said useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not…the mass of its powers” ⁵

Throughout Federalist No. 49, Madison warned against a convention for proposing amendments, and showed that a convention is neither proper nor effective to restrain government when it encroaches.

Madison’s letter of August 28, 1830 to Edward Everett (p. 383-403)

Madison says:

“Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. usurpations & abuses on the part of the U.S…” (p. 398)

So he is talking about provisions – defects – in the Constitution which permit the federal government to abuse the States. He goes on to say:

“…the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn…” ⁶

So he’s saying that when a defect in the Constitution exposes the States to abuses by the federal government, the remedy is to amend the Constitution.

To fully grasp Madison’s point, we must look at his letter in its historical context of the Tariff Act of 1828: The southern states bought manufactured goods from England. England bought southern cotton. But infant industries in the Northeast couldn’t compete with the English imports. So during 1828, Congress passed a Tariff Act which imposed such high tariffs on English imports that the southern states could no longer buy them. England stopped buying southern cotton. This devastated the southern economy. So South Carolina wanted to nullify the Tariff Act (the “Tariff of Abominations”); and developed a theory that a State had a “constitutional right” to nullify any federal law, and the nullification would be presumed valid, unless three-fourths of the States said it wasn’t valid.

Madison opposed South Carolina’s theory because the Tariff Act was constitutional – it was authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 1, US Constitution. States can’t nullify a constitutional law! ⁷

But while the Tariff Act was constitutional, it was abusive: Article I, §8, cl. 1 was being used to benefit infant industries in the Northeast at the expense of the southern states. ⁸

So what’s the remedy “within the purview of the Constitution” for the Tariff Act of 1828? Madison doesn’t spell it out – but obviously Art. I, §8, cl. 1 could be amended to say that Congress may impose tariffs only to raise revenue to carry out the enumerated powers; and may not impose tariffs in order to benefit domestic industries, or to benefit one section of the Country at the expense of other sections. ⁹

Washington’s Farewell Address

In his Address, Washington warns that we must require people in the federal government to confine themselves within their constitutional powers; and we must not permit one department [branch] of the federal government to encroach on the powers of the other departments (p. 15-19). He then says,

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” (p.19)

So Washington is talking about what the people may come to see as defects in the Constitution:

♦ If we want one branch of the federal government to have a power which the Constitution delegates to another branch, we should amend the Constitution to redistribute that power.¹⁰

♦ If we want the federal government to have a power the Constitution doesn’t grant, we should amend the Constitution to delegate the additional power. No matter how desirable it is for the federal government to have the additional power, we must not permit it to exercise the power by usurpation.¹¹

And this is what Alexander Hamilton, who along with James Madison assisted Washington in drafting his Farewell Address, ¹² had previously said in Federalist No. 78: The representatives of the people [Congress] may not violate the Constitution even if a majority of their constituents want them to:

“…Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act…” (5^th para from the end)

Our Constitution isn’t defective, it’s ignored!

Our Constitution is a 5,000 year miracle. Our problem is everyone ignores it. The solution is to dust it off, read it, learn it, and enforce it. Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.

Demand Proof of what people say before you believe them.

If Americans would follow the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and demand proof of the claims the convention lobby makes, they would spot the false claims and preserve our blessed Constitution. Judges & Juries require trial lawyers to prove their claims. Demand the same from lobbyists for a convention!

Endnotes:

¹ Michael Farris claimed [but couldn’t link to a quote because Mason didn’t say it]:

“George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing amendments] be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”

² Amendments can’t “rein in” the fed. gov’t when it “violate[s] its constitutional limitations” because when it does so, it is ignoring the existing limitations on its powers.

³ Mason’s concern was that the new fed. gov’t wouldn’t agree to amendments needed to correct defects in the new Constitution:

♦ Under the Articles of Confederation (our 1^st Constitution), amendments had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the States (see ART. 13). So Art. V of the new Constitution dispensed with the requirement that Congress approve amendments.

♦ Who should be able to propose amendments? Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of 2/3 of the States. But Mason said the people should be able to propose amendments without asking Congress because Congress might become oppressive and not permit the people to get the necessary amendments.

So the convention method was added. And it provided a way for the People to propose amendments. But it also provided a convenient opportunity to get a new Constitution, since the delegates would have that transcendent right, recognized in our Declaration of Independence, to throw off one government and write a new constitution which creates a new government.

George Mason hated the new Constitution. He said on Aug. 31, 1787 that he “would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”; and if it wasn’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another convention. Everybody knew that to get a new Constitution, you need a convention.

Madison and the other Framers went along with adding the convention method because they knew the people had the right to meet in convention and draft a new Constitution whether or not the convention method was added to Art. V [e.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville p. 299 at 2.]; and they couldn’t stop People in the future from doing what they had just done. So Madison, Hamilton & John Jay promptly started warning of the dangers of another convention: see the Brilliant Men handout.

⁴ Here’s an illustration of what States soon saw as a defect in our Constitution: Art. III, §2, cl. 1 delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State”. But when a citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, the States were outraged! See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). So the 11^th Amendment was ratified to take away from federal courts the power to hear such cases.

⁵ The Constitution drafted at the federal convention of 1787 delegates only a tiny handful of powers to the fed. gov’t. See this chart.

⁶ Madison continues, “… according to a process applicable by the States.” Madison always said that when States want amendments, they should ask their congressional delegation to propose them. E.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville (p. 299 at 2.).

⁷ See Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1835) HERE (p. 573-607).

⁸ The Tariff Act of 1828 violated our Founding Principle (2^nd para of the Declaration of Independence) that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us. God never gave us the right to be free of competition in business.

⁹ In the very next paragraph, Madison says that when there is a pattern of usurpations and abuses, we must step outside of the Constitution and resort to the original right of self-defense: resistance, i.e., nullification or revolution (p. 398).

¹⁰ E.g., Art. I, §8, cl. 11 delegates to Congress the power to declare war. But if we want the President to have that power, we should amend the Constitution to delegate that power to the President. We must not permit the President to exercise that power by usurpation!

¹¹ If we wanted the fed. gov’t to exercise power over labor unions, wages & hours, safety standards, food & drugs, manufacturing standards, agriculture, energy, housing, transportation, education, medical care, the environment, etc., etc., etc., we should have amended the Constitution to delegate those powers to the fed. gov’t. But we ignored Washington’s advice, and permitted the fed. gov’t to exercise those powers by usurpation.

¹² The Introduction to the Farewell Address (p. 3) says that George Washington composed it with the assistance of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

Honest discourse about Article V convention needed

By Publius Huldah

Whether States should ask Congress to call a convention under Article V of our federal Constitution is one of the most important issues of our time. The Delegates to such a convention, as Sovereign Representatives of The People, have the power to throw off the Constitution we have and set up a new Constitution – with a new and easier mode of ratification – which creates a new government.¹

Americans need the Truth. But former law professor Rob Natelson’s recent article in The Hill is filled with ad hominems and misstatements. Natelson is legal advisor for pro-convention groups such as “Convention of States Project” (COSP).

“Poisoning the well” fallacy

Natelson characterizes those who oppose an Article V convention as “big government advocates”; “Washington insiders” who protect “judges and politicians who abuse their positions”; chanters of “talking points” from the “disinformation campaign” of the 1960s and early 1970s who have “no real expertise on the subject”; and, like those involved in “voter suppression efforts”, use “fear and disinformation” to discourage citizens from exercising their rights.

And while such tactics clearly resonate with COSP’s cheerleading squad; ² others immediately recognize the preemptive ad hominem attack known as the “poisoning the well” fallacy. That fallacy is committed when one primes the audience with adverse information or false allegations about the opponent, in an attempt to bolster his own claim or discount the credibility of the opponent.

Obviously, Natelson’s characterizations don’t constitute proof that he is right, and opponents are wrong.

Misrepresentations, omissions, and irrelevant “academic research”

1. Natelson asserts:

“Our founders designed this [Article V convention] as a way the people could fix the federal government if it became abusive or dysfunctional”.

But he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing. As proved in The George Mason Fabrication, the Delegates agreed that the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution.

2. Natelson asserts:

“Any proposals must… be ratified by 38 states before they become law.”

That’s not true. While any amendments to our Constitution must be ratified by 38 States; our Declaration of Independence says it’s the “self-evident” Right of a People to abolish their government and set up a new one.

We invoked that Right in 1776 to throw off the British Monarchy.

In 1787, we invoked that Right to throw off our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation; and set up a new Constitution – the one we now have – which created a new government.

How did we get from our first Constitution to our second Constitution? There was a convention to propose amendments to our first Constitution!

The Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

But the Delegates ignored this limitation – they ignored the instructions from their States – and they wrote our second Constitution.

And in Federalist No. 40 (15^th para), James Madison invoked the “transcendent and precious right” of a People to throw off one government and set up a new one, as justification for what they did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787.

We can’t stop that from happening at another convention. Furthermore, any new constitution will have its own mode of ratification. Whereas Art. 13 of the Articles of Confederation required amendments to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States; the new Constitution provided at Article VII that it would be ratified by 9 States.

Any proposed third constitution will have its own mode of ratification. The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1). The States don’t ratify it – they are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

3. Natelson asserts that “academic research” shows:

“…how the convention is chosen and operates: It is a meeting of state representatives of a kind very common in U.S. history…The convention follows a pre-set agenda and attendees are subject to state legislative direction.”

Natelson’s “meetings” are irrelevant:  they weren’t constitutional conventions called to propose changes to our Constitution!

Furthermore, Natelson doesn’t mention the one relevant convention we have had in this Country: the federal “amendments” convention of 1787. That convention involved Delegates who ignored the instructions from their States ³ and from the Continental Congress, and resulted in a new Constitution with a new and easier mode of ratification. That is the only “meeting” which is relevant to the convention Congress has the power to call under Article V of our Constitution.

The “calling” of a convention by Congress is governed – not by Natelson’s “meetings” – but by provisions in our Constitution. Article V delegates to Congress the power to “call” a convention; and Article I, § 8, last clause, delegates to Congress the power to make laws “necessary and proper” to carry out that power.

As to the sovereign powers of Delegates, look to the Declaration of Independence, the federal “amendments” convention of 1787, and Federalist No. 40 – not to Natelson’s “meetings”.

4. In an earlier article, Georgetown law professor David Super cited Coleman v. Miller (1939) to show that as amending the Constitution is a “political question”; the courts are unlikely to intervene. ⁴

Natelson responded that Coleman is a 79-year old “minority opinion the courts have long repudiated”; but doesn’t show where the Supreme Court “repudiated” its opinion.

What Coleman shows is this: we can’t expect federal courts to make Delegates obey instructions. No one has power over Delegates – Delegates can take down one government and set up a new one.

Conclusion

Here’s an idea: Let’s all read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution; elect only people who have also read them, know what they say, and agree to obey; and then let’s downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.

Endnotes:

¹ This is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four Supreme Court Justices, and other luminaries warned against an Article V convention.

² At 5:25-7:35 mark. Archived HERE.

³ The States’ instructions are HERE at endnote 9.

⁴ Professor Super is right: When the Constitution delegates a power to one of the “political” branches [legislative or executive], federal courts [“judicial” branch] traditionally abstain from interfering and substituting their judgment for that of the branch to which the power was delegated.

COS Project’s “Simulated Convention” Dog and Pony Show and What They Did There

By Publius Huldah

1. Foundational Knowledge

Our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government. But 100 years ago, we started electing Progressives (Fabian socialists) to State and federal office. With the enthusiastic approval of the American People, the Progressives set up the socialist regulatory welfare governments (state and federal) we now have. It’s unconstitutional; but Americans didn’t care because they were being taken care of by the governments, and their children were getting “free” public school educations.

So for the past 100 years, the federal and state governments and the American People have ignored our Constitution.

Now that our socialist system is collapsing, along comes the “Convention of States” Project (COSP), blames all our problems on the federal government, and claims we can fix the federal government’s violations of our Constitution by amending the Constitution. ¹

And they say amendments which will “rein in the abuse of power by the federal government” when it “violate[s] its constitutional limitations”, ² can be obtained only at a convention called by Congress pursuant to Article V of our Constitution.

Article V provides that if two thirds of the States apply for it, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. ³ However, Delegates would have the right, as recognized in the 2^nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the Constitution we have and write a new Constitution which creates a new government. This has happened before!

Our first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation. It had defects, so on February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution, with an easier mode of ratification, ⁴ which created a new government. In Federalist No. 40 (15^th para), James Madison invoked the Delegates’ right to abolish our form of government, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, to justify ignoring their instructions and drafting a new Constitution which created a new government.

So! Ever since the federal convention of 1787, it has been known that any convention called to address our Constitution under Article V provides the opportunity to impose a new Constitution. ⁵ That’s why the enemies of our Constitution periodically push for an Article V convention. ⁶

In response to the current push, constitutionalists are warning Americans that if Congress calls an Article V convention, a new constitution with a new mode of ratification is likely to be imposed – probably a new constitution which moves us into the North American Union.

2. COSP’s “simulated” Article V convention

So during September 2016, COSP held an “invitation only” “simulated convention” in Williamsburg, Virginia attended by State Legislators handpicked by COSP, ⁷ to show us that Delegates to a real Article V convention called by Congress will do nothing more than propose amendments.

And lo! At the “simulated convention”, all the handpicked invitees did was propose six amendments to our Constitution – they didn’t “run away” and propose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification!

COSP would like us to believe that their “simulated convention” proves that a real Article V convention called by Congress also won’t run away when, in fact, it proves nothing except that handpicked COSP invitees fall in line with the COSP agenda.

Now let’s look at the proposed amendments: COSP posted them HERE; an archived copy is HERE.

3. COSP’s six amendments

Like Newspeak in George Orwell’s “1984”, the amendments would do the opposite of what COSP claims.

 

“Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1”:

“SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year.

SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money.

* * *”

So! Congress can’t increase the debt unless they decide to increase the debt. Wow. This is “fiscal restraints”?

If you read through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to the federal government, you will get a list of the objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money.

The reason we have a huge debt is because for 100 years, Congress has been spending on objects which aren’t on the list of delegated powers. The States go along with it because they get federal funds for implementing unconstitutional federal programs in their States. 31.9% of the States’ annual revenues is from federal funds. All this federal money is borrowed and added to the public debt!

To say that State Legislators display hypocrisy when they decry “out of control federal spending” when they have their hand out for all the federal money they can get, is an understatement. The amendment authorizes such spending to continue for as long as Congress continues to approve increases in the debt! The amendment legalizes – makes constitutional – all such spending and debt increases!

Section 2 gives us nothing. Our existing Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to require States or local governments to spend money.

 

“Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1”:

“SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states. [boldface added]

SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States. [boldface added]

SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this article. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person.

* * *”

Section 1: The original intent of the interstate commerce clause (Art. I, §3) is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on merchandize as it is transported through the States for purposes of buying & selling; and to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports & exports, both inland & abroad. ⁸

With Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the federal government began to pervert the original intent so as to exert power over whatever they wanted to regulate.

The amendment legalizes the perversions! It delegates to the federal government powers it has already usurped to regulate the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods and articles.

Furthermore: the amendment delegates to the federal government a sweeping new power over the movement or transportation of persons across state lines! It would, e.g., authorize the federal government to prohibit use of privately owned vehicles to cross state lines, and to require prior written permission to cross state lines. I saw in communist East Europe & the Soviet Union a system where governments control movement of persons. Will “Papers, please” be heard at checkpoints in America? This malignant amendment would be constitutional authority to impose such a system here. ⁹

Section 2: The federal government has no existing constitutional authority to regulate intra state commerce, so the first clause of this section adds nothing our Constitution doesn’t already prohibit.

But the second clause delegates to the federal government another significant new power over persons: it comes verbatim from Randy Barnett’s so-called “bill of federalism”: ¹⁰

“…Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.”

Why does Barnett, who attended the “simulated convention” as “Committee Advisor”, want the federal government to have this new power? What’s an “act of war against the United States” – doing what the Bundys and their supporters did? The amendment delegates to Congress the power to define “acts of war against the United States” – and to re-define it from time to time – to encompass whatever they want!

We need to understand the implications of delegating such power to Congress. As with “treason” under the Tudors in England, anyone can be accused of “acts of war against the United States”. Does Randy Barnett, law professor, understand the implications? James Madison understood them and thus said that “treason” must be defined in the Constitution; ¹¹ obviously, no one of Madison’s caliber was at the “simulated convention”.

Section 3: Our Framers didn’t advise the States to file lawsuits against the federal government when it violates the Constitution! Our Framers told the States to nullify such violations. ¹²

 

“Federal Term Limits & Judicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1”:

“No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article.”

This amendment is a feel-good palliative which caters to Americans’ pervasive desire for a quick “fix” which permits them to avoid dealing with the real causes of their problems. See Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure.

 

“Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2”:

“SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form. [boldface added]

SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified.

* * *”

Section 1: Article I, §1, US Constitution, provides that all legislative powers granted by the Constitution shall be vested in Congress. Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution].

Accordingly, executive orders and federal agency rules and orders are not “law”.

The amendment would supersede Art. I, §1. It would elevate to the status of “federal law” every order or regulation burped out by bureaucrats in the executive branch; every executive order signed by every President; and every order barked out by jack-booted thugs working for federal agencies. And unless three fifths of States agree that you don’t have to obey – you must obey or bear the consequences of violating what would be – thanks to this amendment – “federal law”.

Section 2: James Madison, Father of our Constitution, showed how individual States or several States could carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. But the amendment would require 30 States to agree before any one State or person could defend itself!

 

“Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2”:

“SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates.

SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President. [boldface added]

SECTION 3. This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.”

This amendment doesn’t impose “fiscal restraints” – it authorizes Congress to impose new and different taxes on us!

The words in boldface authorize Congress to impose “any tax” if three fifths of both Houses agree. “Any tax” includes a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT). Statists love the VAT because it raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments”. This is what will replace the income, gift, and estate tax.

 

“Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3”:

“Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.”

As shown in The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster, rulemaking by federal agencies is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1 of our Constitution.

The proposed amendment would supersede Art. I, §1 and legalize such rulemaking! And the existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional!

The solution to the burden created by unconstitutional federal agencies is to do away with the agencies! Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers!

4. Conclusion

The “simulated convention” was a dog and pony show put on to produce amendments to con us into believing that a real Article V convention called by Congress won’t “run away”.

But it’s impossible to fix federal usurpations of non-delegated powers with amendments, because amendments can’t take away powers the Constitution didn’t delegate in the first place. Thus, the amendments the hand-picked attendees approved legalize powers already usurped or delegate sweeping new powers to the federal government over States and individual persons!

Statecraft is serious business which requires systematic study to master. The “simulated convention” shows we live in a time of constitutional illiteracy where people of good intent can be misled by persons of “insidious views”. Heed the words of Daniel Webster in his 4th of July Oration, 1802:

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.”

Endnotes:

¹ If your spouse commits adultery, will your marriage be saved if you amend the vows to permit adultery? When People violate the Ten Commandments, will morality be restored if we amend the Ten Commandments to permit sin?

² Michael Farris’ words in “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V” or HERE.

³ None of the Delegates to the convention of 1787 said the purpose of amendments is to rein in the fed. gov’t when it usurps power. They said the purpose is to fix defects in the Constitution. See The George Mason Fabrication at subheading 4.

⁴ Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation (AOC) required Amendments to the AOC to be ratified by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But Article VII of the new Constitution (the one we now have) provided that it would be ratified by 9 States.

⁵ The enemies of our Constitution knew from day one that they could get rid of our Constitution at an Art. V convention! Our present Constitution was ratified by the 9^th State on June 21, 1788. In Federalist No. 85 (mid-August 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of the anti-federalists who were agitating for another convention in order to get rid of our new Constitution.

On Oct. 27, 1788, anti-federalist Patrick Henry introduced into the Virginia Assembly a Resolution asking Congress to call an Art. V convention. In Madison’s letter to Randolph of Nov 2, 1788 (pages 294-297), he speaks of Henry’s “enmity” “ag^st [against] the whole system” [the new Constitution]; and “the destruction of the whole system I take to be still the secret wish of his heart, and the real object of his pursuit.”

⁶ New Constitutions are already prepared or being drafted: e.g., the Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1). Globalists [e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations] who want to move us into the North American Union (NAU) need a new Constitution to transform us from a sovereign nation to a member state in the NAU.

⁷ COSP’s page is archived HERE. See “who attended the simulation” in right column. [Archived list of attendees is HERE or HERE.]

⁸ Proof of the original intent of the interstate commerce clause & how it was abused is HERE.

⁹ Yet, Legislators from 44 of the States at the “simulated convention” approved this!

¹⁰ See Barnett’s Amendment 2 – Limits of Commerce Power”. It’s archived HERE.

¹¹ “Treason” is defined at Art. III, §3. In Federalist No. 43 (at 3.) Madison warns that the definition must be locked into the Constitution. Otherwise, malignant people fabricate definitions as needed in order to condemn their enemies.

Compare Art. I, §8, cl. 10 which delegates to Congress the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”. In Federalist No. 42 (1^st & 4^th paras), Madison points out that this class of powers is among those which “regulate the intercourse with foreign nations” and so must be handled by the general [fed.] gov’t. And since everyone’s definition of the terms is different, the fed gov’t should define them. This class of powers wouldn’t affect private Citizens. For more on the limited criminal jurisdiction of the fed gov’t over private Citizens, see What Criminal Laws are Congress Authorized To Make?

¹² See Nullification made Easy. And remember: State officials are required by the Oath at Art. VI to “support” the federal Constitution – not to obey the federal government!

The George Mason Fabrication

By Publius Huldah ¹

Those who have read Article I, §8, clauses 1-16 of our federal Constitution know that it delegates only a handful of powers (over the Country at large) to the federal government.

They also know that, for the last 100 years, the federal government has violated the Constitution by usurping thousands of powers not delegated.

So what do we do about it?

1. The silly answer of the convention lobby

The convention lobby says that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

Now think about that: When a spouse violates the marriage vows, is the solution is to change the marriage vows? When people ignore speed limits, is the solution to change the speed limits? When people violate the Ten Commandments, is the solution to change the Ten Commandments?

Of course not! The solution is obedience: to the Constitution, the marriage vows, the speed limits, and God.

But the convention lobby’s argument proceeds from silliness to insidiousness: They say that only at an Article V convention can we get the amendments we need.

 2. Why do they want an Article V convention?

Even before the ink was dry on our Constitution of 1787, its enemies wanted to get rid of it:  At the federal convention where it was drafted, George Mason said on Aug. 31, 1787 that

“he would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”; and if it weren’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another general convention. ²

Such demands for another convention persisted after our Constitution was ratified (by the ninth State) on June 21, 1788.  James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay addressed the demands and warned of the dangers of another convention [link].  They understood that a convention is the vehicle for getting a new Constitution.

Today’s enemies of our Constitution are spending vast sums of money to get an Article V convention  [e.g., link and link and link]. Their hirelings are propagandizing and pushing State Legislators all over our Country to apply to Congress to call a convention.

 

Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amendment:  Congress:

1. proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification; or
2. calls a convention if two thirds of the States apply for it.

Our existing 27 Amendments were obtained under the first method. We’ve never used the convention method because until recently, Americans understood the danger.

James Madison wrote in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville [link] that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and if there were another convention, “the most violent partizans”, and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. ³

Alexander Hamilton “dreaded” the consequences of another convention because he knew that enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it: Federalist No. 85. ⁴

The same goes for today. If there is an Article V convention, our enemies will have the opportunity to get rid of our existing Constitution and impose a new one. ⁵

Different factions already have new Constitutions in hand or in preparation in anticipation of an Article V convention. ⁶

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) seeks to bring about a political integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico – a Parliament is to be set up over them, and their police and military forces are to be combined!  You can read the CFR’s Task Force Report on the North American Community at their website here.  Because setting up a Parliament over and above the United States and surrendering sovereignty over our military & law enforcement is altogether repugnant to our existing Constitution, they need a new Constitution which transforms the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention.  See, e.g.,  USMCA ‘Trade Agreement,’ the North American Union, an Article V convention, and Red Flag Laws: Connecting the dots [here].

Now that you see what’s behind the push for a convention, let’s address the Convention Lobby’s Revisionist Account of the federal convention of 1787:

3. The Fake Quote

They claim that, at the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted, our Framers gave us the Article V convention as the “solution” to federal usurpations.  Michael Farris wrote: ⁷

“George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing amendments] be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”

But Mason didn’t say that. Nor did any other delegates say that or anything to that effect. They weren’t silly men.

4. Our Framers said the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution 

James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787, and kept a Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is. Madison’s Journal shows what the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments:

♦Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787, the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision”.

♦ Under the Articles of Confederation (Art. XIII) [link], amendments had to be approved by Congress and all of the States.  On June 11, 1787 the Delegates discussed whether the new Constitution should also require Congress’ approval of amendments.  George Mason said, 

The Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective”, as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be. “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way … It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent …The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution [a defect] calling for amendmt.” [boldface mine]

So Mason’s concern was that Congress might not agree to amendments needed to fix defects.  So he didn’t think the new Constitution should require Congress’ approval of amendments.

♦Alexander Hamilton said on Sep. 10, 1787 amendments remedy defects in the Constitution.

Other primary source writings of the time show:

♦useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13^th para).

♦“amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.)

♦If “… the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates …” (Washington’s Farewell Address, page 19) ⁸

That’s what they really said.

5.  The discussions on how Amendments should be proposed

Now let’s look at the additional words of George Mason’s which the convention lobby has contorted and taken out of context in an attempt to justify their absurd and ruinous claim.

An issue at the convention of 1787 was the manner in which amendments to the new Constitution would be proposed.

Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of two thirds of the States.  On Sep. 10, 1787, he proposed this wording for Article V:

“The Legislature of the United States, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution …”

Mason objected to Madison’s proposed wording.  On Sep. 15, 1787, Mason said,

“As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind, would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”

Now remember! Mason agreed with the other Delegates that the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution.  And his concern (June 11, 1787) was that Congress might not agree to amendments which would be needed to correct defects. ⁹

Neither Mason nor anyone else was so silly as to say that when the federal government violates the constitution, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

6. Why was the convention method added to Article V?

So also on Sept. 15, 1787, Governor Morris and Mr. Gerry moved to amend Article V so as to require a Convention on application of 2/3 of the States.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton went along with it because they understood that a people have the right to meet in convention and draft a new constitution whether the convention method were in Article V or not.  They knew they couldn’t stop future generations from doing what they themselves had already done twice: Invoking the Right, acknowledged in the 2^nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off one government and set up a new one. They invoked that Right during 1776 to throw off the British Monarchy; and during 1787, they invoked it to throw off the Articles of Confederation – and the government it had created – and set up a new Constitution which created a new government.  In Federalist No. 40 (15^th para), Madison specifically invoked this Right as justification for what they did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787: They ignored the Resolution of February 21, 1787 of the Continental Congress  [link] which called the convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”; they ignored the instructions from their States [link] ¹⁰, and they drafted a new Constitution with a new and easier mode of ratification (only 9 States needed to ratify our Constitution of 1787).

So the convention method was added to Article V.  And it provided another way to get amendments. But it also provided a way to get a new Constitution – under the pretext of just getting amendments. ¹¹

7. What’s our real problem? Let’s man-up and address that

Our problem today is not a defective Constitution. Our problem is ignorance, loss of virtue, a willingness to sell our birthright for bowls of porridge from the federal government, refusal to think, and disobedience to our Founding Principles.  Our Framers expected us to be virtuous and informed; and the States to resist federal usurpations. ¹²

State governments could take a giant step in “limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government” by not taking federal funds to implement unconstitutional federal programs.

Open your eyes, Americans.  Do not permit the Globalists to complete their coup against us.

Endnotes:

¹ My friend Don Fotheringham and I discussed this issue; this paper reflects his valuable insights. His paper, “Article V is Deliberately Vague”, is HERE.

² Mason didn’t chop off his right hand. He, along with Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry, refused to sign the Constitution: see Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention for Sep. 17, 1787. Randolph wanted the States to be able to propose amendments to the proposed Constitution, and then all would be submitted to and finally decided on by another general convention: Aug. 31, Sep. 10, and Sep. 15, 1787. Gerry’s objections to the proposed Constitution were such that “the best that could be done…was to provide for a second general Convention”: Sep. 15, 1787.

The federal convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”[link] , and all referred to it as a “general convention” [search HERE for “general convention”, and you will see]. And in Madison’s Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville [link], he writes,

“…3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed …”

³ Madison opposed the convention method: Federalist No. 49 (Feb. 1788); his letter to Turberville of Nov. 2, 1788 [link]; his letter to George Eve of Jan. 2, 1789 [link]; and on June 8, 1789, he circumvented the application submitted to Congress by Virginia on May 5, 1789 for an Article V convention, by introducing into Congress a proposed “bill of rights”. That is the procedure we have followed ever since: When States want amendments, they instruct their congressional delegation to propose them.

⁴ In Federalist No. 85 (Aug. 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of antifederalists who wanted another convention so they could get rid of our newly ratified Constitution. The “excellent little pamphlet” he refers to (9^th para) was written during April 1788 by John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States) and shows:

“the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded.”

Jay warned in his Pamphlet that another convention would run “extravagant risques” [risks].

⁵ Even though Article V speaks of “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, the Delegates would have the “self-evident” right, recognized in the 2^nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off our existing Form of Government and set up a new Constitution which creates a new government. And since a new Constitution would also have its own new mode of ratification, it would surely be approved.

⁶ The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum [Art 12, § 1].

Here’s the proposed Constitution for “The New Socialist Republic in North America”.

The Constitution 2020 movement is backed by George Soros, Eric Holder, Cass Sunstein, and Marxist law professors. They want a progressive Constitution in place by the year 2020.

⁷ Farris’ paper, “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V”, is HERE on the COS website; the copy I preserved is HERE.

⁸  Here’s an example of an amendment to remedy a perceived defect in our Constitution:  It originally delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State” (Art. III, §2, cl. 1). But when a Citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, the States were outraged!  See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).  So during the Washington Administration, the 11^th Amendment was ratified to take away from the federal courts the power to hear cases filed by a Citizen against another State.

⁹  See Note 8 above.  What if Congress hadn’t agreed to propose that amendment?  That type of scenario is what Mason’s words addressed.  Here are examples of other defects Congress might not agree to repair by amendment:

♦ The Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional – it was authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 1, US Constitution. But it was oppressive because it benefited infant industries in the North at the expense of the Southern States.  An amendment could provide that tariffs may be imposed only to raise revenue to carry out the delegated powers of the federal government; and may not be imposed to benefit domestic industries, or to benefit one part of the Country at the expense of another part.  But Congress might not agree to such an amendment.

♦ Slavery was once permitted – the federal fugitive slave laws (Art. IV, §2, clause 3) were oppressive.  Slavery was a defect to be repaired by amendment.  But Congress might not agree to such an amendment.

¹⁰  Art. 13 of the Articles of Confederation required amendments to be agreed to by Congress and all of the States.  Here are the instructions the States gave delegates to the federal convention of 1787:

♦”alterations to the Federal Constitution which, when agreed to by Congress and the several States, would become effective”: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, S. Carolina, Maryland, & New Hampshire.

♦”for the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution”:  Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Delaware, and Georgia;

♦”for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”: New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.

♦”provisions to make the Constitution of the federal government adequate”:  New Jersey

¹¹ George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s desire for an Article V convention so they could get rid of the Constitution of 1787, was no secret.  See, among various others of James Madison’s letters:

♦ His of April 22, 1788 to Thomas Jefferson [link at pages 121-122]: “Mr. H—y is supposed to aim at disunion.  Col. M—-n is growing every day more bitter… if a second Convention should be formed, it is as little to be expected that the same spirit of compromise will prevail in it as produced an amicable result in the first. It will be easy also for those who have latent views of disunion, to carry them on under the mask of contending for alterations….” 

♦ In his letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Edmund Randolph [link at page 295], he recites how, on October 27, Patrick Henry had introduced in the Virginia Assembly an application to the first congress “to call a second convention for proposing amendments to it…”  and that Mr. H—y’s “…enmity was levelled, as he did not scruple to insinuate agst the whole system; and the destruction of the whole system I take to be still the secret wish of his heart, and the real object of his pursuit…”

♦ In his letter of Dec. 8, 1788 to Jefferson [link at page 312]: “…it is equally certain that there are others who urge a second Convention with the insidious hope, of throwing all things into Confusion, and of subverting the fabric just established, if not the Union itself…

¹² Nullification Made Easy and What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

Revised July 5, 2020

Balanced Budget Amendment: The Solution? Or Deathblow?

By Publius Huldah

The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) Made Simple

Say you want your Butler to buy some groceries; so you give him your credit card. You can:

1.  Give him an ENUMERATED LIST of what you want him to buy: 1 chicken, 5# of apples, two heads of cabbage, a 2# sack of brown rice, and a dozen eggs. Whatever amount he spends for these enumerated items will be charged to you.

2.  Tell him he may spend on whatever he wants, and ask him to please don’t spend more than 18% of your weekly income. But whatever amount he decides to spend (on pork and other things) will be charged to you.

The first illustrates how our Constitution is written: The items on which Congress is authorized to spend money are listed – enumerated – in the Constitution. To see the list, go HERE.

The second illustrates how a balanced budget amendment (BBA) works: It creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. And there is no enforceable limit on the amount of spending.

Our Constitution Limits Spending to the Enumerated Powers

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want. If Congress obeyed our Constitution, they would limit spending to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money, excessive federal spending is not the result of a defective Constitution, but of disregarding the existing constitutional limitations on federal spending.

Because we have long ignored these existing limitations, we now have a national debt of some $20 trillion plus a hundred or so trillion in unfunded liabilities. ¹

Various factions are now telling conservatives that the only way to stop out of control federal spending is with a BBA.

Obviously, that is not true. The constitutional answer is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers. Eliminate federal departments (Education, Energy, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc., etc.), for which there is no constitutional authority. ²

Since our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government, most of what they’ve spent money on since the early 1900s is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

Yet our Constitution is still legally in place; and can be dusted off, read, and enforced by a Repentant People. They can shrink the federal government to the size established by the Constitution which created it. ³

Using the Federal “Budget” to Snap the Trap on an Unsuspecting People

Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.

Spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, the Treasury is to publish periodic Statements and Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditures. Since the list of objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money is so short, it would be a simple matter to monitor federal spending and receipts.

But since the unconstitutional Budget & Accounting Act of 1921, Presidents and Congress have been putting into the “budget” whatever they want to spend money on.

Do you see that if the federal government is given constitutional authority (via a BBA) to spend money on whatever they want, they are ipso facto granted constitutional authority to exert power over whatever they want?

Oh, Americans! False friends lead you astray and confuse the path you should take. Under the pretext of imposing “fiscal responsibility” with a BBA, they would legalize the totalitarian dictatorship which has been developing in this Country for 100 years.

Creating the all-powerful federal government by Amendment

 Amendments supersede all language to the contrary in the existing Constitution.  For example, the 13th Amendment superseded provisions within Article I, Section 2, clause 3 & Article IV, Section 2, clause 3 which were inconsistent with the 13th Amendment.

So a BBA, which would authorize Congress to spend money on whatever they or the President decide to put into the budget, would supersede the list of enumerated powers in our Constitution.

All spending on environmental regulation, education, welfare, abortions, etc., etc., etc., is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.  But with a BBA, if these items are put into the budget, Congress would then have lawful authority to spend money on them.

So a BBA would transform the federal government created by our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to one of general and unlimited powers because it would authorize Congress to appropriate funds for – and hence have power over – whatever they or the President decide to put in the budget!

A BBA Wouldn’t Reduce Federal Spending

A BBA wouldn’t reduce federal spending because:

· all versions permit spending limits to be waived when Congress votes to waive them; and

· Congress can always “balance the budget” with tax increases. Compact for America’s “balanced budget amendment” delegates massive new taxing authority to Congress: it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) in addition to keeping the income tax.

Typical Misconceptions

Americans think, “I have to balance my budget; so the federal government should have to balance theirs.”

They overlook the profound distinctions between the economies of their own family unit and that of the national government of a Federation of States. Our federal Constitution sets up a system where Congress is to appropriate funds only to carry out the enumerated powers; and the bills are to be paid with receipts from excise taxes and import tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by a direct assessment on the States apportioned according to population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).

Americans also think that since States have balanced budget amendments, the federal government should have one. They overlook the profound distinction between the federal Constitution and State Constitutions: ⁴

· The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of enumerated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.

· But State Constitutions created State governments of general and almost unlimited powers. Accordingly, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything. So State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.

Conclusion

A BBA would have the opposite effect of what you have been told. Instead of limiting the federal government, it legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; transforms the federal government into one which has power over whatever they decide to spend money on; and does nothing to reduce federal spending.

Endnotes:

¹ State governments are voracious consumers of federal funds. THIS shows what percentage of your State government’s revenue is from federal funds.  Contrary to what RINO State Legislators say, they don’t want federal spending reduced: They want to keep those federal dollars flooding in.

² George Washington’s Cabinet had 4 members: Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General.

³ Our federal Constitution is short and easy to understand. The only way you can avoid being misled is to find out for yourself what it says. Be a Berean (Acts 17:10-12).

⁴ In Federalist No. 45 (3^rd para from end), James Madison said:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Revised July 19, 2017

Get your State Militia revitalized before it’s too late!

In all questions respecting the Militia, Dr. Edwin Vieira is the authority.  In the 7 minute video below, Dr. Vieira  shows us the difference between the State Militia and the State national guard.

I’m going through Title 58 of the Tennessee Code now compiling “The Tennessee Military Code of 1970”. We don’t have an active Militia (within the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16 – and which James Madison described in Federalist Paper No. 46) here in Tennessee. All we have is the national guard which is an adjunct of the federal military (Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 12-14).

When the islamists the obama administration is importing as fast as they can start the civil war here, we better have our own State Militia organized and ready to defend us. But those are not my words. JAMES MADISON SAID IN FEDERALIST NO. 46 that the purpose of the Militia is to defend us from the federal government.

Alexander Hamilton also said that when the federal government acts against our interests, we must look to our States to defend us (Federalist No. 28 and 29).

I call upon retired military men all over the Country and of all the various branches to get together and look into your State Constitutions and State Statutes and find out the Status of your State Militia. It may be that we will have to go back to the State Militia laws which were in effect before the State Military forces were federalized as a result of the Dick Act of 1902.

We better un-federalize our State military forces before the trouble starts.  We can not depend on the US military to defend us. Obama is purging the US Military of good men. All that will be left will be his thugs & bullies – and of course, transgender people and such like.

Freedom isn’t free – as we will soon find out.

You can find Dr. Vieira’s articles here:  http://edwinvieira.com/

And no, News with Views is not an “attack site with malware”. Some people don’t want you reading the articles they publish.

Treason, Cowardice, and the Islamic Invasion: Why States Must Revitalize The Militia

By Publius Huldah

To All State Governors and State Legislators:

War is coming to America. Obama is importing young able-bodied males to make civilizational jihad on us; and Congress can’t summon up the moral courage to stop him.

To see what is ahead for us, watch this 20 minute video. It depicts the Islamic takeover which is right now going on throughout Europe as European countries are being repopulated by millions of young able-bodied Muslim males (euphemistically called “refugees”) who are explicit about their intention to breed the native Europeans out of existence, and replace the European cultures with Islamic culture.

And Obama is bringing it here.

This paper discusses the two courses of action set forth in Federalist Paper No. 46 for situations such as this: (1) The States must refuse to cooperate with the federal government; but if that doesn’t solve the problem, (2) The States must use their State Militia to defend their State and Citizens.

Invaders are not “Refugees” or “Immigrants”

Those pushing for an Islamic takeover of Europe and North America are referring to these able-bodied young Muslim males as “refugees”. The use of that term brings the Muslims who are brought into the United States within the federal Refugee Resettlement Act. And since the Constitution delegates power over immigration to Congress, and Congress re-delegated refugee policy to the President, the States must submit to Obama’s Will and accept the “refugees” he forces on them. Thus goes the specious argument recently made by Ian Millhiser.

But we will look at the Truth.

What does our Constitution say about Immigration and Naturalization?

Immigration (or migration) pertains to new people coming to this Country to live.¹ Naturalization refers to the process by which an immigrant becomes a Citizen.

Our Constitution does delegate power over immigration and naturalization to Congress. Article I, §9, clause 1, delegates to Congress (commencing January 1808) power to control migration. ² Article I, §8, clause 4, delegates to Congress power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

But what is going on now with the importation of large numbers of able-bodied young Muslim males is not “immigration” as contemplated by our Constitution. It is an act of war being committed against the People of the United States by their President. The plan is to overthrow our Constitutional Republic and set up an Islamic Caliphate over America. ³

That is Treason – it is Insurrection. It is not “immigration”, and it is not “refugee resettlement”.

The States must refuse to cooperate

Michael Boldin’s recent informative article explains how the federal resettlement program works: The federal government coordinates resettlement of “refugees” with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) located within the States, and thus circumvents state and local governments. Accordingly, the States should promptly stop all such NGO involvement; take control of the programs themselves; and then refuse to cooperate with the federal government.

James Madison, Father of our Constitution, spells this out in Federalist No. 46 (7^th para). Respecting unpopular acts of the federal government:

“…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” [emphasis mine]

But if the federal government persists, then the States must move to the next Step.

Our Constitution Imposes the Duty on the Federal Government to protect us from Invasion

Article IV, §4, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…” [emphasis mine]

In Federalist No. 43 (3^rd para under 6.), Madison says of this provision:

“A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it…” [emphasis mine]

Article I, §8, clause 15 delegates to Congress the power:

“to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

Article 1, §8, clause 16 delegates to Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. The States retain the power to appoint the Officers and conduct the training.

Article II, §2, clause 1 makes the President Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. [But remember: the federal government may call forth the Militia only for the three purposes listed in Art. I, §8, cl. 15].

But the federal government hasn’t called forth the Militia to protect the States from the Islamic invasion. To the contrary, the President is importing the invaders and foisting them on the States.

So! What are States and The People to do? Because the President is aligned with the invaders, and Congress filled with moral cowards, must we passively submit to having ourselves and our Christian and Jewish children killed, and then let our surviving burka dressed daughters and granddaughters be handed over to the clitoris cutters?

No! The People have the Natural Right of self-defense; and the States have the reserved Power to defend their Citizens. With the State Militia, The People and the States have the means to exercise this Natural Right and reserved Power.

The States must Revitalize their State Militia

What is the Militia? As Dr. Edwin Vieira’s excellent series ⁴ on the Militia and how it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms shows, the Militia has a long history in America. That history began with the English settlements in the early 1600s. Every free male was expected to be armed and prepared at all times to protect himself, his family, and his community. Laws in the Colonies gave effect to this requirement. So at the time of the drafting of our Constitution in 1787, everyone knew of this 150 year long history of free American males being required to be armed, trained, and ready at a moment’s notice to answer the call of Duty.

Accordingly, the above identified “militia clauses” were written into our Constitution of 1787.

In 1792, Congress implemented these militia clauses and passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”. This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to get a rifle, bayonet, ammunition and an ammunition pouch, and enroll in the local Unit of their State Militia for training.

As Section 1 of the Act shows, the adult able-bodied male Citizens of a State are The Members of their State Militia. So, continuing the long-standing colonial tradition, Members of Congress in 1792 thought it such a fine idea that all male citizens be armed and trained and members of their State Militia, they required it by federal law!

So! As Art. I, §8, cl. 15 shows, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into national service to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. But what if the federal government refuses to act?

Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the Citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7^th & 12^th paras); and that the States’ reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9^th para).

And on the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13^th para):

“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition…”

True, it was contemplated that the “United States” would be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN BY INVADERS, then the People have the natural right to defend themselves, and their States have the retained Power to employ the Militia to defend them from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.

The States are within their retained Sovereign Power to call up their State Militia to fend off invaders. Article I, §10, last clause, is an expression of this retained sovereign Power of States of self-Defense:

“No State shall … engage in War, unless actually invaded…”

Clearly, the States may use their State Militia to engage in War to defend the States from Invasion.⁵

James Madison spoke to the same effect as Hamilton respecting federal tyranny. In Federalist No. 46 (9^th para), Madison speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:

“…Let a regular army … be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. … [To the regular army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. … Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms [an insurmountable] barrier against the enterprises of ambition…” [boldface mine]

Look to Your State Constitution for Provisions re Your State Militia

Article VIII of the Constitution for the State of Tennessee provides for Tennessee’s Militia. Consistent with the tradition which has existed in this Country since the early 1600s, all Tennessee Citizens are members of this Militia. Article I, §28, TN Constitution says:

“That no citizen of the state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law.”

Read your State Constitution. What does it say about the Militia? What do the implementing State Statutes say? Is your State Militia active? Why not? For information on revitalizing your State Militia, see Dr. Vieira’s three part series, “Are You Doing Your Constitutional Duty For “Homeland Security”?

Conclusion

Madison closes his magnificent 9^th paragraph in Federalist No. 46 with this:

“…Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.” [emphasis mine]

But we became “debased subjects of arbitrary power”. So now, will we lay down before the Invaders and Insurrectionists and those in our federal government who aid and abet them? Or we will man up, revitalize our State Militia, and show the world that we still have some “free and gallant Citizens of America” in this land?

Endnotes:

¹ Our Framers contemplated that immigration would be restricted to people who shared our culture and values – e.g., Federalist No. 2, 5^th para.

But Americans got conned into believing that an ideal culture is multicultural. Thus, with Teddy Kennedy’s immigration reform act of 1965, our borders were opened to all. We congratulated ourselves on our new virtues of “tolerance” and “diversity”. But the goal of the multiculturalists was to eradicate our unique Culture – we were too gullible to see it. So now, the enemy is inside the gates, and more are coming in. And Islam doesn’t tolerate multiculturalism.

² “Open borders” adherents bristle at the assertion that Congress has constitutional authority to restrict immigration. They insist that Art. I, §9, cl. 1 addresses only the importation of slaves and says nothing about free immigrants. But the text distinguishes between “migrations” and “importations”, and the Duty is levied on “importations”, not “migrations”. Slaves, being “property”, were “imported”. Free Europeans “migrated”. The power of the States to determine such persons as it was proper to admit, expired January 1808. There are various letters and speeches from our early days confirming this. I’ll write it up when I get time (if this doesn’t turn on the light). For now, see Federalist No. 42 (6^th para):

“…Attempts have been made to pervert this clause [Art. I, §9, cl. 1] into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice [the slave trade], and on another as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve none, but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed government.” [boldface mine]

Our Framers understood that the national government must be able to determine who is allowed to come here. That’s why Art. I, §9, cl. 1 delegates to Congress power to control immigration, commencing January 1808. And isn’t one of your complaints against the federal government that it has refused for so long to control our Borders?

³ See the website for The Center for Security Policy (Frank J. Gaffney) HERE. There you can read The Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate and take over all American Institutions. They are working to make this Country part of a global Islamic caliphate. Open your eyes NOW.

⁴ Do read all 8 of Dr. Vieira’s papers in this series. They get very moving.

⁵ “Troops” as in Art. I, §10, last clause, are professional full-time soldiers. States may not keep “Troops” absent consent of Congress. But the States’ Militia is a permanent State institution. The States retain their pre-constitutional powers over their Militia, subject only to the federal government’s limited supremacy set forth in the 3 Militia clauses [See Part 2 of Dr. Vieira’s paper HERE.] PH

December 2, 2015

Straight Talk About An Article V Convention

By Publius Huldah

This speech was presented to Campaign For Liberty – Memphis on March 24, 2014. It exposes some of the false claims made by those pushing for the so-called “convention of states”. ¹

Below are hyperlinks to the exhibits referred to in the speech. Additional resources are also included.

The one page Chart which illustrates our Declaration, Constitution, and federal system is HERE.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report ² cited in the speech was dated March 7, 2014. CRS’s revised Report, dated April 11, 2014, is HERE.   The Report exposes as false the assurances that the States would be in control of a convention. The Report says:

“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” (page 4)

“Second . . . Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including . . . (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; . . .” (page 4) ³

“. . . [In previous bills filed in Congress] [a]pportionment of convention delegates among the states was generally set at the formula provided for the electoral college, with each state assigned a number equal to its combined Senate and House delegations. Some bills included the District of Columbia, assigning it three delegates, but others did not include the federal district. . .” (page 37; see also page 41)

“. . . A related question concerns vote allocation in an Article V Convention. Would delegates vote per capita, or would each state cast a single vote, during the convention’s deliberations, and on the final question of proposing amendments?. . .” [then follows a discussion of different views on this undecided issue] (page 41)

“Article V itself is silent on membership in an Article V Convention, so it is arguable that Congress, in summoning a convention to consider amendments, might choose to include the District of Columbia and U.S. territories as either full members at a convention, or possibly as observers. As noted previously, some versions of the Article V Convention procedures bills introduced in the late 20th century did provide for delegates representing the District of Columbia, although not for U.S. territories . . .” (page 42)

Page 40 of the Report shows there doesn’t seem to be any:

“. . . constitutional prohibition against [U.S.] Senators and Representatives serving as delegates to an Article V Convention. . . “

So! As the CRS Report states on page 27:

“In the final analysis, the question what sort of convention?” is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembles.”

Do you see? But by then, it will be too late to stop it. HERE is former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger’s letter confirming this. ⁴

The text of the “parental rights” amendment is HERE. For two papers showing how Michael Farris’ proposed amendment delegates power over children to the federal and State governments, go HERE  and, for the follow up paper, HERE.

To see how six of Mark Levin’s so-called “liberty amendments” do the opposite of what he claims, go HERE.

To see – on one page – proof of the original intents of the “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, go HERE.

The proponents of a convention portray the States as victims of federal tyranny. But the Truth is that the States voluntarily surrendered their retained powers, and the natural rights of The People, TO the federal government. And they did it for federal funds. Today, States get from 20% (Alaska) to 45.3% (Mississippi) of their State budgets from the federal government. State governments don’t want to rein in the feds! The people who run your State will do anything to keep their federal funds. HERE is the Pew Report.

Our Framers – those who actually signed the Constitution – NEVER said the purpose of amendments is to rein in the feds if they usurp powers. What they actually said is:

• amendments remedy defects in the Constitution (Hamilton at the federal convention on Sep. 10, 1787);
• useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13^th para); and
• “amendment of errors” & “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.)

HERE are the Articles of Confederation. Note that Art. XIII required approval of amendments by every State.

HERE is the Resolution, made by the Continental Congress on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74), to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

“…for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

HERE is James Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville. Copy it to word processing, make paragraph breaks, & highlight it. Madison NEVER supported the convention method of amending our Constitution.

HERE is Joe Wolverton’s article about the Socialists’ involvement in the push for a convention.

HERE is the Constitution for the Newstates of America. Article XII addresses ratification by a referendum called by the President. Read HERE about the proposed Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America. Read them and see what is being planned for you by people you think are on your side.

HERE is the screen shot of Jordan Sillars’ comment re re-writing the Constitution.

For Q’s & A’s on this issue, go HERE.

Endnotes:

¹ There is no such thing as a “convention of states” to propose amendments. The term is a marketing gimmick used by proponents of an Article V convention to manipulate people into believing that the States would control an Article V convention – from start to finish.

Article V, US Constitution, provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution:

1. Congress proposes amendments and submits them to the States for ratification [the method we used for our existing 27 Amendments]; or

2. Congress calls a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments [for good reason, we have never used this method].

² Even though we have never had an Article V convention; Congress has examined procedures for “calling” a convention so as to be ready if the need arises. The CRS Report proves that Congress has historically viewed its powers respecting “calling” a convention as exclusive and extensive. I thank Robert Brown for bringing the CRS Report to my attention.

³ The position Congress has historically taken in this regard is totally consistent with Article I, Sec. 8, last clause, which delegates to Congress power to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the power vested in Congress at Art. V to “call” the convention.

⁴ Folks! For the sake of your Posterity, you must understand this: After a convention is convened, the delegates can do whatever they want – including coming up with an entirely new Constitution with its own new method of ratification. Chief Justice Burger wrote in his June 22, 1988 letter to Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly:

“… there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose. . .”

The federal convention of 1787, which was called by the Continental Congress “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”, should serve as a warning: The delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress [and from their States]; ignored Art. XIII of the Articles of Confederation which required the States to obey Congress on matters covered by the Articles, and wrote an entirely NEW Constitution with a NEW method of ratification which required only 9 of the 13 States for ratification.

Credits:  Many thanks to Devvy Kidd, Blue Tail Gadfly, and M. Craig Elachie, from whom I lifted the very best lines in the speech. PH

Posted October 11, 2014.

What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

Advice From James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.

By Publius Huldah

1. What can a State – or several States – do to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?

2.  Federalist No. 46  (7th para) discusses how individual States or several States carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. If a particular State takes an action which the federal government doesn’t like, but which has the support of the People of that State, the federal government can’t do anything about it unless it is willing to use force.

When several States oppose an unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government, Madison says they have powerful means of opposition:  the disquietude of the people, their repugnance (e.g., baby-killing enshrined into public policy), the Peoples’ refusal to co-operate with the officers of the federal government; the opposition of the State officials; and all those legislative devices State Legislatures can invent to thwart & impede the federal government in its unconstitutional schemes.

So, in para 7, Madison contemplates that not all States will oppose unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. But he shows that this need not impede the States who do.  Such States need not implement in their States the federal government’s lawless usurpations.  Have we forgotten how to just say, “NO! You have no authority under the Constitution to do this, and the Sovereign State of X and the Sovereign People of the State of X won’t permit this.”  If we have taken the Oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3), then we are bound by Honor to support it!

3.  Note that Madison doesn’t say the States should file lawsuits in federal court. And WHY would Sovereign States, which formed a federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution; ask one branch of the federal government (judiciary) to opine on whether a “law” approved by the two other branches (legislative & executive) exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress or encroaches on the reserved powers of the States and the People (10th Amendment)?  All three branches of the federal government have been unified against The Constitution, the States, and the People for a very long time!  Why do States put themselves in the position of supplicants to a Court which has already shown itself to be contemptuous of the Constitution, and of the States’ and The Peoples’ reserved powers?

Furthermore, the Supreme Court is not even the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution!  Alexander Hamilton said federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”(Federalist No.16, 10th para).

4.  In para 8, Madison discusses a “general alarm” among the States as to encroachments by the federal government. Here, Madison contemplates concerted “plans of resistance” among the States; and Madison says it may come to a “trial of force” if a crazed federal government doesn’t back down. In para 10, Madison says that the federal government’s “schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people”.

5.  In para 9, Madison discusses the federal government’s initiation of a “trial of force”.   But who would fight for the federal government?  Madison spoke of the regular Army as the force used by the federal government.  But that has been the Army of our children and neighbors’ children!  [We need not fear them unless we permit aliens to serve in our armed forces.]   The federal government does have, here & there, those heroic, noble, and brave men who shoot nursing mothers in the forehead, young boys in the back, and gas & apparently incinerate men, women & children. How many are they?  Then there is Obama’s personal “civilian national security force”.  Has it been established?  Even so, would they be honorable men, or another collection of thugs?  In any event, Madison said, “…it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”

6. When we quote James Madison and The Federalist Papers on what States may do when the federal government has encroached upon the powers reserved by the States and the People; we quote a high Authority on The Constitution. James Madison is the Father of the Constitution,  and the author of many of the Federalist Papers.   States act lawfully when they follow such  guidance of James Madison. When the federal government descends into lawlessness & tyranny, The States and The People may protect and preserve their Constitution – as they are already sworn to do.

7. Yes, the ultimate authority resides in The People.  But this does not mean that The People should – or need to – initiate a show of force.  Remember the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King!  He put on his clerical collar and went out into the streets with others to protest State LAWS which enforced segregation.  They used non-violent civil disobedience:  Black people sat down at “white’s only” lunch counters!  Black people sat in the front of the buses.  They did not initiate force.  The moral superiority of their position could not be denied, and they won.

8.  We have Our sacred Constitution.  The most important concepts for you to learn are these:  (1) ENUMERATED POWERS (2) Why neither the “GENERAL WELFARE“, the INTERSTATE COMMERCE nor the “NECESSARY & PROPER” [see linked paper at para 13] clauses authorize Congress (or the President or the FEDERAL COURTS ) to exceed their enumerated powers (3) The true meaning of the “RULE OF LAW” and how that differs from the “Rule of Men”; (4) What is “FEDERALISM“, and (5) The origin of our Rights and why you must NEVER speak of  “constitutional” rights. My papers on RIGHTS explain the moral superiority of our position. You must learn why our position is morally superior to that of the statists. And you must be prepared to explain it at all times.

May God be merciful and grant us national repentance and a peaceful political resolution.

April 3, 2010; revised April 16, 2011