As for the corrupt representatives we have now?Use that ground swell of indignation to remove the cancer.I would advise groups of “get out the vote” and these groups use of a recurrence to the principles of Constitutional governance,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as their mantra.

I did mention how to change unconstitutional legislation and their arbitors. The VERY first thing we must do is educate ourselves on those that wish to be elected.This is ALL our own fault.WQe the people do not do the work required in order to obtain and maintain "just" self-governance.

The Traditional American Philosophy
A Definite, Unique, American Philosophy of Government Does Exist--Composed of a Set of Specific, Fundamental, Traditional Principles

When the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed in 1776, and the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted in 1787-1788, the American people and their leaders firmly believed in, and acted upon the basis of, a definite set of principles--ideas made American principles by being applied governmentally. Some of them were stated in the following words of the Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Text exactly per the original.)

There are those who deny and deplore the idea that there exists a definite group, or set, of fundamental principles--uniquely American as a whole--which constitute the traditional American philosophy of government. Yet there are voluminous historical records which amply prove their existence and definition, the chief source in brief form being this 1776 Declaration--especially the profound sentences quoted above. It was with the gift of foresight--anticipating those in the future who would scoff at the above-mentioned idea and seek to belittle the sincerity and ideals of the generation of Americans of the Revolutionary period--that the town-meeting of Braintree, Massachusetts, adopted on October 14, 1765, a set of "Instructions," drafted by John Adams, to their representatives in the legislature of Massachusetts regarding opposition to the Stamp Act, stating in part as follows:

"We further recommend the most clear and explicit assertion and vindication of our rights and liberties to be entered on the public records, that the world may know, in the present and all future generations, that we have a clear knowledge and a just sense of them, and, with submission to Divine Providence, that we never can be slaves . . ."

This indicates what Adams meant when he stated long afterward (letter to Jefferson, 1815) that: "The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington."

The above-quoted statement in the Declaration of Independence, of high-minded principles and idealistic goals, is unsurpassed in all the world's writings about Mankind's tortuous struggle throughout history toward the ever-beckoning Light of Individual Liberty. This statement sought to express succinctly the essence of the philosophical basis of the reconciliation of Man's longing for Individual Liberty with the inescapable need for an orderly society, through Government, in order that Man's Liberty may exist. This contemplates the existence of Government adequate for the people's prescribed purposes, for the nation's security and sound functioning, but limited in power so as to make and keep their liberties secure against abuse, or usurpation, of power by public officials as public trustees.

The successful reconciliation of this longing for Individual Liberty with this need for Government makes possible the desired result: Man's Liberty against Government-over-Man. This means Freedom of Man from Government-over-Man. This goal and ideal proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 were later translated into governmental reality through adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787-1788, which accomplished this reconciliation in a degree never before attained by any people in all human history. This successful application in the Constitution of the principles of the Declaration was the subject of comment by James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. After reading to the members the first few sentences of the Declaration, including those quoted above, he noted their relationship to the constitutional system:

"This is the broad basis on which our independence was placed: on the same certain and solid foundation this system is erected."

This relationship of the Constitution to the Declaration was also commented on in his April 30, 1839 "Jubilee" address by former President John Quincy Adams.

This relationship--this successful application in the Constitution of the Declaration's principles--is a major factor supporting the soundness of the conclusion that a definite, unique, American philosophy of government does exist--composed of a set of specific, fundamental, traditional principles. The governmental realities, created by the constitutional system, gave substance to these principles.

"Vindiciamus"

I am dumbfounded, i am only showing you truths backed by resurchablr documentation. These are lessons concerning our True form of governance and the principles behind it’s framing.This IS where America has gone wrong by not continueing to educate the proper history of our Governance.

“Vindiciamus”

In time we will see that most Americans aptly take charge, and all this bickering is for naught. What didnt happen in the 30's will in fact happen now BECAUSE of the fact that we can and often do backtrack what is said with the world wide database callled the web.

The issue I have Is that people come in to this realization late in the game and go through old emotional phases, well they are old hat to me, classic psych symptomology of denial anger and acceptance.

This persuit of knowledge is 27 yrs old to me, i have been a dedicated researcher the last 3-4 of those years. What people need to realize is that humans thrive on knowing the truth for the most part and in the end it will be mankinds saving grace. Things happen when and as they should. There isnt a whole lot of time for DR House standards of bashing people into realization, either they get on board before we lose our freedoms or they get on board in the stockade fema camps.

persevere in your life and doctrine.

Allan Hampton Says:

Look in the mirror - there you will see the person that is obligated to “enforce” the Law of the Constitution (Oath of Office) on government Officials and the constitutional power to do that is “written” in Article I, Section 2.

An American is also obligated to protect fellow Americans, whether they are spiritual or not, from government abuse with legislation by serving on a Jury (two of them). The power to serve on a Jury is “written” in Amendments 5, 6 and 7, of the Bill of Rights.

God will save souls into the hereafter but Americans are obligated to save each other’s ass from government abuse in the here and now.

, that is the very nature of what MUST happen, but people cannot do it if they dont realize it is within their power. i dont seek to win any converts I take it in my hands and empower myself and if others follow so much the merrier we are together.

Once the truths are known action should be simple and intuitive.

Vern,
(You have been programed to react to passion and conviction as a “psychological technique”. )

We have all been programmed larry , look at hwere we are due to the fact that we didnt take the initiative.when you point one finger three point back.

(Contrary to your politically correct approach to debate, Not every strong word should be taken as a personal attack. While It is wildy popular to defend our position by taking offense to an otherwise perfectly suitable tone concerning this subject ( politics ) your reply shows that we first communicate that we have been offended. In doing this we have achieved our objective of steering the debate in a direction that emphasises feelings, and sensitivity, instead of addressing the questions or defending our statements.)
That is one way of viewing it where as another is that we are in control and never lost control and even if they burned the bill of rights it is within our power to assert them and condemning others is counter productive. naysayers simply need to be ignored.

(A very predictable approach to ending debate by one who cannot defend their position)
I for one and I suspect you are quite capable of defending our positions, i dont need to attempt to discredit you because like it or not we NEED to work together, here again the so called programming causes friction, in the lack of ability to unify.
We dont need to argue we need to act, we dont need to petition less than patriotic americans because there are enough of us to do an effective job.
Trust in your vision and act on that , all should do the same and realize there isnt time to nitpick techniques, there is only time to do what you feel you must.

The common causation of today ills is the abduction of society into a great social experiment according to theories that are now known to be false.

THE COMMON CAUSATION: article, adjective, adverbial noun, subject = what made things happen, to cause an effect

OF TODAY’S ILLS: prepositional adjective, prepositional object: (ILLS) = effect of this causation.

IS: verb, 3rd present singular of ‘be’ = the action of becoming what we are now

THE ABDUCTION: predicate nominative, describes or renames the subject (CAUSATION) = to carry off by force or deception

Of society: prepositional adjective of ABDUCTION = general population

INTO A GREAT SOCIAL EXPERIMENT: prepositional adjective of (ABDUCTION); prepositional object: EXPERIMENT = testing for discovery of the unknown or to verify a supposition.

ACCORDING TO THEORIES: nominal preposition extending the verb ‘is’; prepositional object: THEORIES = hypotenuse, proposed explanation.

THAT ARE NOW KNOWN: subordinate phrase modifying the objective noun (THEORIES); verb: ARE: 3rd present plural of ‘be’; adverb: NOW = present time; predicate nominative describes or renames subordinate phrase subject (THEORIES): KNOWN = understand from experience.

TO BE FALSE: prepositional adjective of ‘known’ = conclusion of what we know from experience, the theory is false.

HOPE THIS HELPS. The theories and means of abduction are further down in the post. -JOS

The common causation of today ills is the abduction of society into a great social experiment according to theories that are now known to be false.

This is easily seen with a rudimentary understanding of American philosophy: Pragmatictism as developed by Charles Pierce (not known by most because while it may be referenced it is not taught in schools). A fundamental axiom of pragmaticism is the full abduction of society, i.e. a free flow of knowledge from the highest studies to the most humble task. As an American philosophy predicated on Individual Sovereignty, access to knowledge is the primary factor for a successful self-directed life both personally and socially.

The 20th century marks a time when experimental social theories, now known to be false, were imposed on society through the consolidation of thinking and activity among banking, industry and the usurping the people’s linage and legacy of self governance with election fraud and continued violations of the public trust in media, medicine and education.

Two predicates of the theories adapted by industrialists at the turn of the last century in their aspiration of creating the perfect industrial society are:

1. The human being is a product of the environment; therefore, if you can control the environment you can control the development of humanity.

2. The body is a machine that can be studied and understood for efficient maintenance; that thoughts and emotions are complex chemical equations in response to external stimulus.

Enshrining these two theories as the exclusive, official doctrine of public education, medical research and social policy, constricted the development and flow of knowledge and traditional American medical and educational practices were declared foolish and often illegal.

With this centralized dictate of knowledge and study, our social contract was shifted from one of individual sovereignty and the development of personal power for a successful self-directed life to one of human resources trained for specific tasks that were deemed by ‘experts’ to be beneficial to an industrial society. Creative expression was replaced with industrial production as a measure of personal wealth and social progress.

The result of wrong thinking is every where to be seen. Society is the aggregate of individuals. Restore social health by restoring, improving personal health.

Couldn't disagree with you more Vernon,

you gave a great speach, and it hits home ( for us who care )
But, you don't give Americans enough credit this is their choice!. As the founder of Trends Research Institute Gerald Celente said. "With the amount of information available, There is no excuse for the ignorance that Americans are displaying" Mr. Celente was referring to the consolidation of world Government. But enough of quoting others.

My Reply to your statements:

"America modernized the world and made vast technological advances."- Yes because of Capitalism, just like Japan, Korea, and many, many more.
"We shaped the land regardless of how hard it was."- Yes because of the lack of interference of a centralized government.

"We set standards and help other countries attain them."- Gotta take issue with you on this one Vernon...
We do it to impose our foreign policies and to assert our will, Every country we "set standards" for Has a Mcdonalds and Levi Strauss hanging on their retail racks. ever notice how every single state looks exactly the same? same National stores, traffic lights, goods, services, and products? You can be dropped off in any city in any state with your eyes closed, Open them and the landscape will look like home.. Well, the landscape is very much the same in foreign countries.
Step off a plane in Heathrow airport in London.. it doesn't look any different then O'Hare in Chicago, Same Wendy's Mcdonalds, KFC,.. Drive a few clicks on the M25 and you find Costco.. in fact England has 11 costco's Same giant stores, same great products..Want KFC?.it's in India. While in Germany, stop in at your friendly walmart, if your getting a little home sick. Looking for toys for your kids while in Spain?..go to Toys R US. At the risk of sounding Cleché, I digress...

Americans are consumed with what pleases them. The next time you are curious what Americans place as a priority, just look at what the AP reports as "Breaking news" Michael Jackson, and Tennessee QB McNair.
This is what America cares about. Not the fact that we are selling our selves out. I hate to say it but there seems to be just a handful of people who actually care, granted, the list is growing, but the Federal power Grab is out pacing the amount of people who are getting on board.

You are right, we are all of those things, and much more, if only someone had the right remote control to 'CLICK' Americans off their fat overweight asses and do something besides worry about their favorite prime time TV show interfering with their Kid's bathtime. It seems to me that we are in dire need of getting hit with a giant stick in order to jarr people awake, A month long black out, Massive fuel shortages, food shortages.. anything to get the American public out of the living room and over to the neighbors house to collectively find out "WHAT HAPPENED?" and "where is everyone going?".. we need the paddles because at this point, we are flat lining.
Look at Iran, these people march by the tens of thousands in the streets!, this is called conviction, patriotism. Fellow countrymen marching as one, against their screwed up government... and we just sit in the Lazy-boy, and shake our big dumb heads at the news, and silently bitch and complain about the state of our nation. we sit idly by while people we vote in screw us for special interest money. forget about the Majority, they are asleep at the wheel, what about us who care? Yes, we have guns, yes at one time we would have marched against tyranny. But we have been guilted into keeping our mouths shut for fear of being called redneck, or racist, or extremists.. I would bet the majority of people on this site are just like me, gun owners, who, at night when left alone with their thoughts have thought about resistance.. but Violence is definitely not the answer because we all have to much to loose.. self defense is another matter.

In the past we would have stood up for our neighbors rights and he would have done the same for us, but those days are over, we don't even talk to our neighbors anymore, hell, we don't even know our neighbors anymore, why should we? the days of giving a helping hand or a neighborly hello are over. there is no crop to bring in, or Barns to be raised, we are lucky if we can muster up the guts to borrow a set of jumper cables or a snow shovel. What we need is what we aint got.. we need to find a reason to get together..and it has to be as important to you, as it is to the stranger on the street.. something like food.. or fuel, or power.. something that puts everyone in the same boat... with no oars. something that money can't solve, something that can only be solved by standing together to confront it, something that requires sharing. 'I have a wood stove and plenty of wood'.., and I notice that you have a lantern, the guy down the street has neither.. but he has plenty of coffee.

larry Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I have stated this a few times on this board:
If Americans had half of the will that the Iranian people have ( and now the Hondurans ), we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in. But instead, we care more about American Idol then the direction this nation is heading. we deserve this mess.. All of it.

i couldnt disagree more larry

Since the early 1900's corporate campaigns have been engineered to manipulate the mids of americans.
bernays made it work extremely well drawing on psychological models discovered by his uncle and two others in the field of psychology.

Sigmund frued was his uncle.

you introduce an advanced form of manipulation on an unsuspecting populace and gain control and its not their fault. its only their fault if they know it and go along anyways.

we dont deserve this larry. We simply forgot how to intellectually defend ourselves. no one deserves this.

Allan he is quoting my editorial

[b]The 4th of july
July 4th, 2009 / Author: Vernon nielsen[/b]

2007
HR 1955 called Americans homegrown terrorists
2008
Bush passed a law exempting he and his cabinet from criminal prosecution
2009
obama allows a bill that makes psyche tests manditory for veterans to guage gun ownership eligibility

That doesnt scratch the surface even a bit. the sheer magnitude of the lost freedoms is so staggering and so rediculous yet As bernays set forth , the american buyer is sedated as long as there is SOME form of personal purchasing power.

Rockerfeller admitted his treason to the USA in his memoirs, the corporatocracy is even now coming into solid existence.

the UN tells the world to drop the dollar.

july 4th is a celebration of a new nation that was truly independant; can you honestly say, once you know the legislation that violates our constitution; that there is something worth celebrating?

Because I cannot.

july 4th is a dead holiday.

The right to keep and bear arms HAS been infringed on every level except the final level as englands and australias has.

Free speech has been violated by hate crime legislation.

Posse commitatus was vilated several times laste year and will be this year.

habeas corpus is on the ropes in legislation.

Miranda rights have been violated this year.

The guaranteed REPUBLICAN form of government has become democracy , or has it? especially when leaders are chosen by the elite. Making it a corporatocracy under the US corp umbrella.

Social security is Voluntary yet we arent readilly informed of it.

tax is voluntary and was always intended as such.

every amendment as stated in the original documents has been violated and now Obama calls it an antiquated idea.

When is a public that rules its country in a republic EVER an antiquated ideal.

Think about that when you light off your bottle rockets, think about the 8+ million laws that lie upon your head. Think about what it took to set in motion the greatest form of government on earth and how our negligence has lost it for us.

Think about tomorrows children increasingly enslaved by debt and control.

Todays july 4th celebration is an insult to our founding ideals and the blood of the good people that made our republic possible, and when we light that firework up we can know that we have chosen the side of the enemy by not DOING everything we have the power to do to cast the corporation off of us, and in effect we kill the founding fathers ourselves.

I know its harsh but its the truth.

its not a dedicated group of men in tatters celebrating a victory over the most feared foe on earth, Its not the thousands that died to give us a chance, its not the embattled fortresses defending against an un ending parade of murderous thugs.

Its a boom and a sparkle and an “oooh thats pretty”
its not the supreme intellect that forged a way for average men to rule as equals
its a sidestop when going to the market
a smell in the air that most dont equate with massive deaths
a glittery remider of nothing but a bernays tactic to enslave
but
somewhere
deep in the psyche of all Americans
we know what we need to do
were just enjoying the last moments of a dream that never was
one we didnt pay enough attention to as crooks came in and subjected us to less than equal status
; tomorrow , next week, next year
somewhere down the road
america gets off its programmed ass
and it corrects itself
and then all hell breaks loose
but then it breaks loose on brothers who will stand through it.

and from then on these petty baubles will have purpose. more than they have ever had.

This 4th of july has past but an ideal remains

life liberty and the persuit of happiness

men ruling as equals , hiring representatives for interstate and international arrangements.

Making their own laws

writing their own fates

I want our world viewers to know that it is within the reach of ALL men to have these things. That our community as a populace is global. We are all one body of organisms on one body of earth.

We love we hate we tell truths we lie we give and we take and we strive for greater things. We believe and we hope, and this planet is ours, it is up to the poulace to maintain it, to maintain equality, to never give in to idolatry that allows the masses to be herded into cages and chains.

to share our cultures as children exploring nature.

To govern ourselves and reduce government to office clerks who wait on the written agreements of the people to act.

so the world can reflect our concerns and our pain as one, so the affairs of men can reflect our love and our struggles to have and to share love.

its up to us to form the next age, lets get it right and remove the corruption, and remake the entire world for the people and by the people.

I am the sedition against the few ruling the many, I am the sedition that makes everyman equal. i am the sedition that monitors hired public servants and allows no secrecy. I am the coming age of man the revolution man has yearned for all of these centuries.

,,,, And so are you.

"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." George Bush Senior speaking in an interview with Sarah McClendon in December 1992

An army of people simply need to self organize around right principle. Are you a free and sovereign soul, are you a human resource or are you just confused. The common founding principle of our society is Individual Sovereignty. This is the hallmark of the Declaration of Independence which is the founding force of law in this land.

The constitution is a framework for implementing this fundamental law of the land. Education into even a simple understanding of American political science is really the first order of business.

United States of America is a spiritual nation. Liberty and Freedom are spiritual principles which can only be obtained by personal discipline and aspiration. They are not commodities to bought and sold with money. Once attained, spiritual power a becomes personal power that will never surrender and can never be taken away.

Declare your Sovereignty and just stop. Legally and ethically, fraud violates all contracts. The obvious being revealed today is that banking, industry and government agencies are an incestuous criminal enterprise that has enslaved everyone with a clever use of contract law. Fraud violates all contracts. Return to Constitutional law. Stand fast on the supreme law laid our in the Declaration of Independence.

Strengthen you personal power to be free of this slavery and just stop; or gradually stop. Stop buying all processed food, stop watching TV/Cable News, stop paying student loans, mortgages and credit cards, declare your self free from all government mandates, agencies and bureaucracies. These are all elements of contract law. Fraud violates all contracts.
Such acts are not random, whimsical, spiteful or resentful. The characteristics of a Sovereign Soul are thoughtful, deliberated and willful acts for the common good. The work is not to reform but to reorder self governance and social services around right principle loyal to the public trust and general welfare..
Relearn and realign yourself within and without. Find your center of integrity and associate with those also living with a personal measure of integrity. Declare your Sovereignty and renew the Declaration of Independence in your life and restore Constitutional Law in your life. Educate yourself, practice for yourself; and then get to know your family, friends and neighbors and support their education; live and practice living life in the principle of Liberty and Freedom with Justice for all.

In this time, when the turn of events is bringing the defense of Liberty back into the open, we don’t need an army of complainers, we need an army of doers.
The United States of America is the New World Order. Established on the principle of equal sovereignty for all it started a social order never before seen in the world. What’s masquerading under this baner today is a last ditch effort to maintain the Old World Order where a pope, king or military Emperor deemed authority to rule over the masses. This is 16th century thinking which is just over, obsolete and seriously old fashioned.
Please remember, that individual liberty and freedom is not something you are rewarded for good deeds or special favors. Liberty and freedom is something you declare; and when you do that only then can you live as a Sovereign Soul blessed with the liberty of Sovereign Citizenship. The Constitution was designed to ensure and protect this primary principle of our society.

Ignorance is the chain of slavery. Fear is the lock on the chain. Break the locks and free the chain by educating yourself to the qualities and practices of Individual Sovereignty. What does one such look like? This is the driving question of American education for a nation of pioneering citizens working to create a New World Order with governance of the people, by the people and for the people.
We are for 200 years and still today an experimental society. Let’s just say: “Game on!” and get to it. What do we do? Learn to live in New Health as a sovereign soul blessed with the liberty of sovereign citizenship.
This is a topic of serious discussion, creative thinking and thoughtful activity. The New Health Cafe is a place to nourish this work both within and without. Stop by to help organize this work for a better day: 133 Gregory St., Rochester, NY 14620; newhealthcafe@gmail.com. Peace & goodwill, joseph

# Allan Hampton Says:
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Uncle Ruthless,

What are you talking about; our freedoms are all gone to a “Congress” created fascist corporate government.

Do you have a suggestion as to how We, the People can reestablish Constitutional America?

Allan

my friend

its not a dedicated group of men in tatters celebrating a victory over the most feared foe on earth, Its not the thousands that died to give us a chance, its not the embattled fortresses defending against an un ending parade of murderous thugs.

Its a boom and a sparkle and an “oooh thats pretty”
its not the supreme intellect that forged a way for average men to rule as equals
its a sidestop when going to the market
a smell in the air that most dont equate with massive deaths
a glittery remider of nothing but a bernays tactic to enslave
but
somewhere
deep in the psyche of all Americans
we know what we need to do
were just enjoying the last moments of a dream that never was
one we didnt pay enough attention to as crooks came in and subjected us to less than equal status
; tomorrow , next week, next year
somewhere down the road
america gets off its programmed ass
and it corrects itself
and then all hell breaks loose
but then it breaks loose on brothers who will stand through it.

and from then on these petty baubles will have purpose. more than they have ever had.

This 4th of july has past but an ideal remains

life liberty and the persuit of happiness

men ruling as equals , hiring representatives for interstate and international arrangements.

Making their own laws

writing their own fates

I want our world viewers to know that it is within the reach of ALL men to have these things. That our community as a populace is global. We are all one body of organisms on one body of earth.

We love we hate we tell truths we lie we give and we take and we strive for greater things. We believe and we hope, and this planet is ours, it is up to the poulace to maintain it, to maintain equality, to never give in to idolatry that allows the masses to be herded into cages and chains.

to share our cultures as children exploring nature.

To govern ourselves and reduce government to office clerks who wait on the written agreements of the people to act.

so the world can reflect our concerns and our pain as one, so the affairs of men can reflect our love and our struggles to have and to share love.

its up to us to form the next age, lets get it right and remove the corruption, and remake the entire world for the people and by the people.

I am the sedition against the few ruling the many, I am the sedition that makes everyman equal. i am the sedition that monitors hired public servants and allows no secrecy. I am the coming age of man the revolution man has yearned for all of these centuries.

,,,, And so are you.

The Ruthless Truth blog
http://theruthlesstruth.com/wordpress/?p=2454

In response to the assertion that:"The United States Isn’t a Country — It’s a Corporation!"

No the Constitution is simply a compact or contract between the States and the federal government is nothing more than the agent of the States.

Shortly after his death in 1850, John C. Calhoun’s essay entitled A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States was published in book form. Calhoun explained the government established by the Constitution in 2 paragraphs:

"It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation.
* * *
Ours is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States."

The government established by the Constitution is federal because it is the States’ government. It is simply an agent created by the States to perform limited functions that would be difficult or impossible for the States to perform individually. Abel Upshur discussed this principle in his book, The Federal Government, Its True Nature and Character. Published in 1868, it remains one of the two finest books ever written on the nature of the federal government:

"The Federal Government was established only for such purposes as the State government could not answer, to wit; the common purposes of all the States.
* * *
The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it---the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution.
* * *
The Constitution is a compact, and the parties to it are each State, with each and every other State. The Federal Government is not a party, but is the mere creature of the agreement between the States as parties."

Since the federal government was established to be the States’ government, the general provisions of the Constitution were to pertain to the States collectively—not the people generally. This fundamental principle, which is overlooked in modern discussions concerning the nature of the Constitution and the powers of the federal government, was reduced to a single sentence by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Essay No. 83:

"The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer." [Emphasis not added

The States in their united capacity are the object of the general provisions of the Constitution because the document is a contract {compact} between the States.

For those, like Allan Hampton, who naively believe that Congress controls the destiny of the nation:

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarch, more insolent than autocracy and more selfish than a bureaucracy. I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions, in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy..... I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war."
- Abraham Lincoln, who got Congress to pass the Legal Tender Act of 1862 which allowed the Treasury to print Greenbacks to pay the debt to the Bankers from the war without incurring more 24-36% interest (assassinated)

JFK on June 4, 1963 issued presidential order EO 11110 giving the president authority to issue currency. He then ordered the US Treasury to print over $4 billion worth of "United States Notes" to replace Federal Reserve Notes so that he could eliminate the Federal Reserve (assassinated)

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

"The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War."
- Benjamin Franklin

“I sincerely believe...that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies...”
- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."
- President James Madison

Larry, the only historical statement of yours that is remotely true is "The corporation was in response to dishonest people”.

What you're referring to is the Limited Liability nature of modern corporations, which was not made a part of corporate law until the latter half of the nineteenth century. And the justification was not "frivolous lawsuits" (the chimera of the Libertarian fringe), but difficulty in attracting wealthy investors who were afraid to risk their personal fortunes if their investments went sour.

What we now know as the Corporation is an excuse for the wealthy to take great financial risks without either any significant personal consequences or any social conscience. Welfare in America began - and continues to be dominated - by the redistribution of public assets into corporate hands (between 1861 and 1871, railroads received nearly $100 million in financial aid, and 200 million acres of public land).

So, yes, the corporation is "in response to dishonest people", but they are those who benefit without personal risk - the kind of people which Adam Smith abhored.

Robert,
you are confusing the Nationl Guard with the United states military.
some of the incidences you list were put down by the national Guard. Not Federal troops
However you did miss one that the Federal troops did put down under the command of Macarther and Patton, and that was the bonus march of 1932.

IDAHO, 1892, Army suppresses silver miners’ strike.
CHICAGO, 1894, Troops breaking of rail strike, 34 killed
IDAHO, 1899-1901, Army occupies Coeur d’Alene mining region.
COLORADO, 1914, Breaking of miners’ strike by Army.
WEST VIRGINIA, 1920-21, Army intervenes against mineworkers.
DETROIT, 1943, Army puts down Black rebellion.
DETROIT, 1967, Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES, 1968, After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
SOUTH DAKOTA, 1973, Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
LOS ANGELES, 1992, Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

Michael Boldin said:

"Huldah - “born with” is a far cry from what you’re saying. I strongly believe that Mr. Browne is right - sadly, though, like he said - after years of government indoctrination in the schools they come out with this belief that “freedom” means subservience to the state."

MICHAEL: I HOPE YOU are right & I am wrong. Yes, it it true that we were indoctrinated with statism while in the government schools. But WHY did most people accept it; and only a few of us reject it?

The government schools also destroyed the minds of the students - most Americans know nothing, can't think, and don't know they know nothing and can't think. WHY were only a few of us immune to this dumbing down?

So I conclude that most people are born to be slaves subservient to the State. As long as they are permitted to evade the knowledge that they sold themselves & their posterity our for "security", they like statism. Look at how Americans embraced the SS system and other statist unconstitutional programs! Why do all the "democracies" end up socialist? Free men don't vote for those who promise government programs!

But again, I hope you are right and I am wrong. PH

This Weekend is July 4ht, REMEMBER: The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation!

The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation!
by Lisa Guliani

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." ~ Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." ~ Excerpted from the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen united states of America, July 4, 1776

Fourth of July 2002 has come and gone, and Americans honored the holiday with a renewed patriotic fervor that reminded me of the Bicentennial celebrations of 1976. As is customary, traditional fireworks displays took center stage and scores of people turned out to witness the dazzling show in the summer sky. With mixed feelings, I sat with friends on a crowded Pennsylvania sidewalk beneath a glittering, mesmerizing explosion of color, pondering the keen sense of sadness and betrayal that overwhelmed my spirit. Looking around at the huge crowds gathered for the annual events, I thought silently, "We are not free." In truth, we have not been a free people for a very long time.

We celebrate this day in honor of our "independence". We call ourselves a free people in a land of liberty. Our anthems proudly sing the praises of this nation, and we raise our voices, wave our flags and join in song — but how many Americans realize they are not free? This is a myth perpetuated by the powers-that-be in order to avoid any major civil unrest, and to keep us all living under the thumb of a militaristic corporate Big Brother within the illusions that have been created for us. The truth of the matter is this: what freedom has not been stolen from us, we have surrendered willingly through our silence and ignorance. As Americans, most of us have no idea how our freedoms are maintained — or lost. Apparently, our ancestors didn't have a good grasp of this either. It is sad, but it is also very true.

Don't point to that beloved parchment, the Constitution, as a symbol of your enduring freedom. It is representative of a form of government which seemingly no longer exists in this country today. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in this country remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth — what lies beyond the myths. Your so-called government is not going to tell you, either.

To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic. When we examine what happened during that time in our history, we begin to piece together this troubling, perplexing puzzle that is "America" — only then should we answer as to whether we are indeed a "free" people or not.

So, let's roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn't teach us in school. It is far more interesting than what they DID tell us. I think you'll stay awake for this lesson.

More:

This Weekend is July 4ht, REMEMBER: The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation!

The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation!
by Lisa Guliani
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.ht...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." ~ Preamble of the original "organic" Constitution

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." ~ Excerpted from the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen united states of America, July 4, 1776

Fourth of July 2002 has come and gone, and Americans honored the holiday with a renewed patriotic fervor that reminded me of the Bicentennial celebrations of 1976. As is customary, traditional fireworks displays took center stage and scores of people turned out to witness the dazzling show in the summer sky. With mixed feelings, I sat with friends on a crowded Pennsylvania sidewalk beneath a glittering, mesmerizing explosion of color, pondering the keen sense of sadness and betrayal that overwhelmed my spirit. Looking around at the huge crowds gathered for the annual events, I thought silently, "We are not free." In truth, we have not been a free people for a very long time.

We celebrate this day in honor of our "independence". We call ourselves a free people in a land of liberty. Our anthems proudly sing the praises of this nation, and we raise our voices, wave our flags and join in song — but how many Americans realize they are not free? This is a myth perpetuated by the powers-that-be in order to avoid any major civil unrest, and to keep us all living under the thumb of a militaristic corporate Big Brother within the illusions that have been created for us. The truth of the matter is this: what freedom has not been stolen from us, we have surrendered willingly through our silence and ignorance. As Americans, most of us have no idea how our freedoms are maintained — or lost. Apparently, our ancestors didn't have a good grasp of this either. It is sad, but it is also very true.

Don't point to that beloved parchment, the Constitution, as a symbol of your enduring freedom. It is representative of a form of government which seemingly no longer exists in this country today. The Constitution has been thrown out the window, the Republic shoved aside and replaced with a democracy. The thing is; most people in this country remain unaware that this is so because they simply do not know the truth — what lies beyond the myths. Your so-called government is not going to tell you, either.

To even begin to understand what has happened to the Republic, we must look backward in time to the period following the Civil War. We must go back to the year 1871, which was the beginning of the decline of the Republic. When we examine what happened during that time in our history, we begin to piece together this troubling, perplexing puzzle that is "America" — only then should we answer as to whether we are indeed a "free" people or not.

So, let's roll backward into the past for a moment. It is time we learned what they didn't teach us in school. It is far more interesting than what they DID tell us. I think you'll stay awake for this lesson.

=-=-=-=-=-=

The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia."

This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

What???

How could they do that?

Moreover, WHY would they do that?

To explain, let's look at the circumstances of those days. The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated "front" for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.

The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone's pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position. This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

It is the corporate constitution.

It is NOT the same document you might think it is.

The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.

Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. Think about that for a moment.

Incidentally, this corporate constitution does not benefit the Republic. It serves only to benefit the corporation. It does nothing good for you or me — and it operates outside of the original Constitution.

Instead of absolute rights guaranteed under the "organic" Constitution, we now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example of this is the Sovereign's right to travel, which has been transformed under corporate government policy into a "privilege" which we must be licensed to engage in. This operates outside of the original Constitution.

So, Congress committed TREASON against the People, who were considered Sovereign under the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. When we consider the word "Sovereign," we must think about what the word means.

According to Webster's Dictionary, "sovereign" is defined as: 1. chief or highest; supreme. 2. Supreme in power, superior in position to all others. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other, possessing or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction.

In other words, our government was created by and for "sovereigns" — the free citizens who were deemed the highest authority. Only the People can be sovereign — remember that. Government cannot be sovereign. We can also look to the Declaration of Independence, where we read: "government is subject to the consent of the governed" — that's supposed to be us, the sovereigns. Do you feel like a sovereign nowadays? I don't.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that this is not what is happening in our country today. Government in these times is NOT subject to the consent of the governed. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia — encroaching into every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction outside of the District of Columbia. THEY just want you to think it does.

You see, you are presumed to know the law. This is ironic because as a people, we are taught basically nothing about the law in school. We are made to memorize obscure factoids and paragraphs here and there, such as the Preamble, and they gloss over the Bill of Rights. But we are not told about the law.

Nor do our corporate government schools delve into the Constitution in any great depth. After all, they were put into place to indoctrinate and dumb down the masses — not to teach us anything. We were not told that we were sold-out to foreign interests and made beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress to the international bankers. For generations, American citizens have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay on a massive debt that they, as a People, did not incur. There are many, many things the People have not been told. How do you feel about being made a beneficiary of somebody else's massive debt without your knowledge or consent? Are we gonna keep going along with this??

When you hear some individuals say that the Constitution is null and void, think about how our government has transformed over time from a municipal or service-oriented entity to a corporate or profit-oriented entity. We are living under the myth that this is lawful, but it is not. We are being ruled by a "de facto," or unlawful, form of government — the corporate body of the death-mongers — The Controllers.

With the passage of the Act of 1871, a series of subtle and overt deceptions were set in motion — all in conjunction and collusion with the Congress, who knowingly and deliberately sold the People down the river. Did they tell you this in government school? I doubt it. They were too busy drumming the fictional version of history into your brain — and mine. By failing to disclose what THEY did to the American People, the people became ignorant of what was happening. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin to the point of a knockdown. With the surrender of their gold in 1933, the People essentially surrendered their law. I don't suppose you were taught THAT in school either. That's because our REAL history is hidden from us. This is the way Roman Civil Law works — and our form of governance today is based upon Roman Civil Law and Admiralty/Maritime Law — better known as the "Divine Right of Kings" and "Law of the Seas", respectively. This explains a lot. Roman Civil Law was fully established in the original colonies even before our nation began and is also known as private international law.

The government which was created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 operates under Private International Law, and not Common Law, which was the law of the Constitutional Republic. This is very important to note since it impacts all Americans in concrete ways. You must recognize that private international law is only applicable within the District of Columbia and NOT in the other states of the Union. The various arms of the corporation are known as "departments" such as the Judiciary, Justice and Treasury. You recognize those names? Yes, you do! But they are not what you assume them to be. These "departments" all belong to the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. They do NOT belong to you and me under the corporate constitution and its various amendments that operate outside of the Constitutional Republic.

I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. Realize, too, that the corporation is not a separate and distinct entity from the government. It IS the government. YOUR government. This is extremely important. I refer to this as the "corporate empire of the UNITED STATES," which operates under Roman Civil Law outside of the Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a cheesy, sleazy corporation? You'll ask your Congressperson about this, you say? HA!!

Congress is fully aware of this deception. You must be made aware that the members of Congress do NOT work for you and me. Rather, they work for the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Is this really any surprise to you? This is why we can't get them to do anything on our behalf or to answer to us — as in the case with the illegal income tax — among many other things. Contrary to popular belief, they are NOT our civil servants. They do NOT work for us. They are the servants of the corporate government and carry out its bidding. Period.

The great number of committees and sub-committees that the Congress has created all work together like a multi-headed monster to oversee the various corporate "departments." And, you should know that every single one of these that operates outside the District of Columbia is in violation of the law.

The corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY state of the Republic beyond the District of Columbia. Let this sink into your brain for a minute. Ask yourself, "Could this deception REALLY have occurred without the full knowledge and complicity of the Congress?" Do you think it happened by accident? You are deceiving yourself if you do. There are no accidents or coincidences. It is time to confront the truth and awaken from ignorance.

Your legislators will not apprise you of this information. You are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don't know the law, or your history for that matter, because this information has not been taught to you. No concerted effort has been made to inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of the facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to "give" you — at a price. Be wary of accepting so-called "benefits" of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Aren't you enslaved enough already?

I said (above) that you are presumed to know the law. Still, it matters not if you don't in the eyes of the corporation. Ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse. It is your responsibility and your obligation as an American to learn about the law and how it applies to you. THEY count on the fact that most people are too uninterested or distracted or lazy to do so. The People have been mentally conditioned to allow the alleged government to do their thinking for them. We need to turn that around if we are to save our Republic before it is too late.

The UNITED STATES government is basically a corporate instrument of the international bankers. This means YOU are owned by the corporation from birth to death. The corporate UNITED STATES also holds ownership of all your assets, your property, and even your children. Does this sound untrue?

Think long and hard about all those bills you pay, all those various taxes and fines and licenses you must pay for. Yes, they've got you by the pockets. Actually, they've had you by the ass for as long as you've been alive. In your heart, you know it's true. Don't believe any of this? Read up on the 14th Amendment. Check out how "free" you really are.

With the Act of 1871 and subsequent legislation such as the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment, our once-great nation of Sovereigns has been subverted from a Republic to a democracy. As is the case under Roman Civil Law, our ignorance of the facts has led to our silence. Our silence has been construed as our consent to become beneficiaries of a debt we did not incur. The Sovereign People have been deceived for hundreds of years into thinking they remain free and independent, when in actuality we continue to be slaves and servants of the corporation.

Treason was committed against the People in 1871 by the Congress. This could have been corrected through the decades by some honest men (assuming there were some), but it was not, mainly due to lust for money and power. Nothing new there. Are we to forgive and justify this crime against the People? You have lost more freedom than you may realize due to corporate infiltration of the so-called government. We will lose more unless we turn away from a democracy that is the direct road to disaster — and restore our Constitutional Republic.

In an upcoming article, we'll take a closer look at the purportedly ratified 14th Amendment and how we became "property" of the corporation and enslaved by our silence.

I am saddened to think about the brave men and women who were killed in all the wars and conflicts instigated by the Controllers. These courageous souls fought for the preservation of ideals they believed to be true — not for the likes of a corporation. Do you believe that any one of the individuals who have been killed as a result of war would have willingly fought if they knew the full truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his life for a corporation? I think not. If the People had known long ago to what extent their trust had been betrayed, I wonder how long it would have taken for another Revolution. What we need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We change our thinking and we change our world.

Will we ever restore the Republic? That is a question I cannot answer yet. I hope, and most of all — pray — that WE, the Sovereign People, will work together in a spirit of cooperation to make it happen in this lifetime. I know I will give it my best shot — come what may. Our children deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty our ancestors fought so hard to give to us. Will we remain silent telling ourselves we are free, and perpetuate the MYTH? Or, do we stand as One Sovereign People, and take back what has been stolen from the house of our Republic?

Something to think about — it's called freedom.

=-=-=-=-=-=

My heartfelt thanks goes out to the following people for their gracious and generous assistance in researching this subject: Ken S. of American Revolution II Online News, Paul Walker of RMN News, Bob Taft, Stanooch, and Willy Whitten — true Patriots, one and all.

b>Further reading:

Thomas J. DiLorenzo: Truth About the 14th Amendment:
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control...

Kirwan: FEMA — The Plan to Kill America:
http://www.americaheldhostile.com/ed050603-1.shtml

Control of Government: http://www.teamlaw.org/control.htm

Eliminate Taxes: http://www.commonlawvenue.com/Summaries/02-elimina...

”If we are stupid enough to surrender our freedom to a bunch of lousy international bankers, then we deserve to live in bondage.” — Lisa Guliani

See also:
US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions: http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscod...

(15) "United States" means —

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Ed Lewis: Who's the boss in America?: http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/feb2/bos...

A copy of the Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM here: http://www.serendipity.li/cdrom.htm

Liberty and Democracy: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill.html

Serendipity Home Page: http://www.serendipity.li/index.html

URL

http://blogs.albawaba.com/kramfoknad/1539/2009/07/...

We do not even need the Ten Amendments known as the bill of rights.They are covered in the body, articles and section of the Constitution.

Limited Government In Relation to Some Fields of Power Prohibited to the Federal Government
The Constitution's enumeration of powers granted to the Federal government is summed up by Madison in The Federalist number 45, as we have seen, as being: ". . . few and defined . . . will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce . . ." It is of interest to note briefly some principal examples of fields of power which are prohibited to the Federal government by the Constitution, as amended to the present writing.

In The Federalist number 17, Hamilton decried the idea that the new Federal government--to be created under the Constitution, then in process of ratification--would not respect the strict limits on its powers as prescribed in this fundamental law but would usurp the reserved powers of the States; as was being asserted by those who were extremely fearful of any central government with substantial powers and were arguing in favor of stricter and clearer limits on Federal power. Chief among these were Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and Samuel Adams. Hamilton here mentioned commerce, finance, negotiation, and war as being the principal fields of power properly delegated to the Federal government but he expressly made it clear that agriculture is excluded. He classified agriculture as a field belonging to the reserved powers of the States--as one which could never properly be under the control of the central government:

"The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same state, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things in short which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desireable cares of a general jurisdiction."

By "general jurisdiction" he meant the Federal government. The field of agriculture was no doubt chosen by Hamilton for specific mention here because it was common knowledge--not only among those who had framed the Constitution but among all other leaders as well as the people at large---that nothing would have been considered more unarguably and absurdly false than any claim that the activities of people engaged in agriculture would be subject to Federal regulation or control, directly or indirectly, under the Constitution's wording as understood by The Framers and Adopters and everyone else.

Several other illustrations of prohibited power were provided by President Jefferson in his Second Inaugural Address. He discussed the constructive uses of any possible surplus revenues of the Federal government and mentioned some which he stated are outside of the scope of power of this government under the Constitution, expressly noting that an amendment of the fundamental law would be necessary before such use could be made of any surplus of tax monies:

". . . by a just repartition among the states, and a corresponding amendment of the constitution, be applied, in time of peace, to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state." (Emphasis added, except "in time of peace" emphasized in the original.)

In other words, Federal spending for these specified purposes was not authorized by the Constitution--these fields of activity being excluded from the scope of the Federal government's power under the Constitution; so an amendment would be necessary in order to give any such spending the necessary sanction through the properly expressed consent of the people. In his sixth annual Message to the Congress in 1806, Jefferson again discussed possible surplus revenues and their use in such fields requiring a constitutional amendment:

". . . application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers . . . I suppose an amendment to the constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied." (Emphasis added.)

It is particularly interesting to note that Jefferson here soundly distinguished between using Federal monies to aid education (mentioning particularly a national institution of scientific learning )--which he stated is unauthorized, unless and until an amendment to the Constitution would be adopted authorizing it; and, on the other hand, aiding education by making land-grants from the colossal holdings of virgin and unsettled land already owned by the Federal government (by occupation, purchase or conquest from the Indians and foreign governments), which he stated the Congress "now have it in their power" so to use. Such aid to education by Federal land-grants was already customary; it had been commenced under the Confederation and was generally considered to be within the powers of the Federal government under the Constitution--but not so as to tax-monies in the Federal treasury.

Special emphasis is needed with regard to the basis of this distinction between such Federal land-grants and money-grants, as to constitutionality: the Federal government has the power to dispose of land and other property it owns (Art. IV, Sec. 3) and, furthermore, single-transaction land-grants could not possibly accomplish the unconstitutional objective of permitting it to obtain, in effect, any control over the recipients. On the other hand, the Constitution did not specify aid to education as one of the purposes for which the Federal government (specifically the Congress) might tax and spend; and furthermore periodic, or regular, grants of money could not but have the practical effect of giving this government--perhaps indirectly, gradually and subtly but nevertheless inescapably--substantially controlling influence over the recipient institutions, or persons. This is due partly to the reason cited by Hamilton in The Federalist number 79: "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." (Emphasis Hamilton's.) In other words, "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Such control can even be effectively manifested negatively, by creating inhibitions on the part of the recipient of the subsidy or grant of funds, rather than through control affirmatively and outrightly. For example, those who would hope for a Federal grant in the future--such as a scholar, or a college--would be strongly inclined to refrain from criticism of this government regarding things which would otherwise be freely and vigorously condemned as unsound.

This is why Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, carefully restricted his contention in 1791 so as to exclude Federal control, when he first argued in favor of the idea that the Taxing Clause gives the Federal government a separate and substantive power for the "application of money," within the limits of what would serve the general welfare. He also stated, in another document, that it would not ". . . imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare" and continued:

"A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication." (1791 "Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States"; and 1791 Report on "Manufactures.")

The Taxing Clause, using the words "general Welfare," (Art. I, Sec. 8) states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . ."

Hamilton always denied that this clause gives Congress a general legislative authority--to legislate regarding, and so as to achieve, whatever Congress might consider to be for the common good. He never varied from his assertion in The Federalist number 83, regarding the plan of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution, with regard to such authority, as follows:

"The plan of the convention declares that the power of congress or in other words of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority; because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." (Emphasis per original.)

Hamilton never contended for--indeed, he evidently would have opposed strenuously--use of the Federal power to tax and spend so as in effect to give the Federal government indirectly any control over anything, or anybody, which is not directly and openly authorized by the Constitution and its amendments through enumeration of the powers granted to it by the people. He would undoubtedly have agreed with the distinction which Jefferson drew--in the above-mentioned addresses made after Hamilton's death--with regard to Federal aid to Education: that land-grants in aid of education are constitutional, partly because they could not possibly produce any degree of control over the recipient institutions due to such grants being a single-transaction measure as to each of the recipient institutions.

The opposite would be true as to Federal grants of monies periodically, because they could not possibly avoid producing the effect of substantial control over the recipient--however gradual, or subtle, or indirect, or negative (by creating inhibitions) and regardless of how arranged so as to conceal the element of control. In the 1936 Butler case, the Supreme Court truly stated (pages 70-71 of opinion): "The power to confer or withhold unlimited benefits is the power to coerce or destroy;" and it restated (pages 73-74) and applied the cardinal, constitutional principle that what the Constitution does not specifically empower the Federal government to do directly, so as to be able to exercise control, ". . . it may not indirectly accomplish those ends by taxing and spending to purchase compliance." In other words, a power granted by the Constitution may not be misused by this government so as in effect to enable it indirectly to exercise a power which has not been so granted and therefore has been prohibited to it. While in the related Wickard case (1942) the Court asserted [correctly, but only if it be true that the particular subsidy is authorized by the Constitution] that: "It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes." (Page 131 of opinion; here "regulate" means control.) Judged by his writings, including his 1791 assertions noted above, Hamilton would have agreed and would have disapproved, as unconstitutional, any and all subsidy-and-control schemes of the Federal government except such as might be directly and clearly authorized by the people, by a constitutional amendment, empowering this government so to control openly and directly the persons, or institutions, subsidized. Madison and all of the other Framers and Adopters of the Constitution also would have agreed--Jefferson, too.

The fields of power denied to the Federal government by the Constitution, according to both Hamilton and Jefferson--agriculture, education and so on, as noted above---could be multiplied by citing other writings by them and other Founders; but this is unnecessary for present purposes and would not take into account any additions to Federal power authorized by subsequent amendments. It is desirable, therefore, to quote here a modern writing which correctly reflects the views of The Framers and Adopters as to the initial instrument's exclusion of fields of power from Federal control and, in addition, takes into account all amendments to the present period.

A 1930 writing which fills this need is available; and, in addition, it is an excellent and concise discussion of the traditional American philosophy and system of government regarding especially the nature and importance of decentralization of power ("States Rights") as a mainstay of the security of the people's liberties. The Constitution has not been amended since 1930 to increase Federal power, so this writing in effect speaks as of today with regard to the extent of Federal powers; indeed, they have since been decreased by repeal of the 18th ("Prohibition") Amendment by adoption in 1933 of the 21st Amendment. This 1930 writing is cited for the further reason that it is couched in simple terms and presents only ideas which were then common knowledge and accepted truths among the American people--even among Youth with a normal high-school education for that period--as well as among the people through all generations from 1787 to 1930. The writing is cited not because it expressed anything new, or any original thinking of its author but, on the contrary, because it did not do so. Its special usefulness and value stem from the fact that it merely re-stated the traditional view as always understood and supported up to 1930 by all competent scholars and authorities--including the three Branches of the Federal government, especially the Supreme Court--as well as by leaders and the American people in general. This widespread understanding was such in 1930 that, if the valedictorian of a graduating class of a college, or even of a high school, had then made this address as the one usual on such an occasion, the audience would justly have applauded on the ground that there was nothing in it but long-accepted truths so well known that it merely evidenced the young orator's being soundly and reasonably well-informed regarding the elementary simplicities of the traditional American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited and decentralized power and its fundamental importance to the safety of the American people's God-given, unalienable rights.

This writing referred to is the March 2, 1930 "States Rights" address of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York--the full text of which, for the foregoing reasons, is set forth in the Appendix to this study-guide. This Address--made as an appeal to the American people for support of his plan to be elected President and presenting some of the basic principles which, he impliedly assured them, he would if elected faithfully support--was in criticism of any concentration of power in Washington in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.

The entire address merits careful study for the reasons previously noted; but, at this point in the present discussion of fields of power prohibited to the Federal government by the Constitution as amended, the following short quotation will suffice:

"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social wel[are and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." (Emphasis added.)

To repeat, the Constitution has never been amended since 1930 so as to increase the Federal government's power. Since then, no amendment has granted it any power to control any of the prohibited fields of power specified by Hamilton, Jefferson and Roosevelt as mentioned above. It is of unusual interest to note that agriculture---expressly listed by Hamilton in 1787 and by Roosevelt as of 1930 as being among the fields of power prohibited to the Federal government by the Constitution--was the subject of the above-mentioned Butler case (1936): There the Supreme Court confirmed the fact of such prohibition, in deciding that the Federal law under consideration--seeking to subsidize and control agriculture--violated the Constitution's limits on Federal power and therefore was null and void, judged by this instrument's original meaning which the Court correctly ruled is controlling unless and until the people change these limits by due amendment of this basic law.

It is a fundamental principle of the American philosophy that the people themselves, as well as their public servants who are sworn to support the Constitution faithfully, must respect the existing limits on the Federal government's power under the Constitution, as amended; which can be changed by the people only by its amendment. Referring to the amending process as a "solemn and authoritative act," Hamilton stated the principle (previously noted) in The Federalist number 78 as follows: "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." (Here "sentiments" refers to public opinion in favor of some measure not authorized by the Constitution.) The reason why this principle is so basically important was stressed in Washington's Farewell Address as follows:

"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. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."

This highlights the tremendous importance of the American people's being always soundly informed with respect to the limits on the Federal government's power under the Constitution; as amended, in order to be able to perform adequately the duties inherent in Individual Liberty-Responsibility and thus make possible the enduring safety of their God-given, unalienable rights and Posterity's just heritage of Individual Liberty and its supporting system.

"Vindiciamus"

Or we can call for the amendment of the Constitution.

"Vindiciamus"

As for the corrupt representatives we have now?Use that ground swell of indignation to remove the cancer.I would advise groups of “get out the vote” and these groups use of a recurrence to the principles of Constitutional governance,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as their mantra.

I did mention how to change unconstitutional legislation and their arbitors. The VERY first thing we must do is educate ourselves on those that wish to be elected.This is ALL our own fault.WQe the people do not do the work required in order to obtain and maintain "just" self-governance.

The Traditional American Philosophy
A Definite, Unique, American Philosophy of Government Does Exist--Composed of a Set of Specific, Fundamental, Traditional Principles

When the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed in 1776, and the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted in 1787-1788, the American people and their leaders firmly believed in, and acted upon the basis of, a definite set of principles--ideas made American principles by being applied governmentally. Some of them were stated in the following words of the Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Text exactly per the original.)

There are those who deny and deplore the idea that there exists a definite group, or set, of fundamental principles--uniquely American as a whole--which constitute the traditional American philosophy of government. Yet there are voluminous historical records which amply prove their existence and definition, the chief source in brief form being this 1776 Declaration--especially the profound sentences quoted above. It was with the gift of foresight--anticipating those in the future who would scoff at the above-mentioned idea and seek to belittle the sincerity and ideals of the generation of Americans of the Revolutionary period--that the town-meeting of Braintree, Massachusetts, adopted on October 14, 1765, a set of "Instructions," drafted by John Adams, to their representatives in the legislature of Massachusetts regarding opposition to the Stamp Act, stating in part as follows:

"We further recommend the most clear and explicit assertion and vindication of our rights and liberties to be entered on the public records, that the world may know, in the present and all future generations, that we have a clear knowledge and a just sense of them, and, with submission to Divine Providence, that we never can be slaves . . ."

This indicates what Adams meant when he stated long afterward (letter to Jefferson, 1815) that: "The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington."

The above-quoted statement in the Declaration of Independence, of high-minded principles and idealistic goals, is unsurpassed in all the world's writings about Mankind's tortuous struggle throughout history toward the ever-beckoning Light of Individual Liberty. This statement sought to express succinctly the essence of the philosophical basis of the reconciliation of Man's longing for Individual Liberty with the inescapable need for an orderly society, through Government, in order that Man's Liberty may exist. This contemplates the existence of Government adequate for the people's prescribed purposes, for the nation's security and sound functioning, but limited in power so as to make and keep their liberties secure against abuse, or usurpation, of power by public officials as public trustees.

The successful reconciliation of this longing for Individual Liberty with this need for Government makes possible the desired result: Man's Liberty against Government-over-Man. This means Freedom of Man from Government-over-Man. This goal and ideal proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 were later translated into governmental reality through adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787-1788, which accomplished this reconciliation in a degree never before attained by any people in all human history. This successful application in the Constitution of the principles of the Declaration was the subject of comment by James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. After reading to the members the first few sentences of the Declaration, including those quoted above, he noted their relationship to the constitutional system:

"This is the broad basis on which our independence was placed: on the same certain and solid foundation this system is erected."

This relationship of the Constitution to the Declaration was also commented on in his April 30, 1839 "Jubilee" address by former President John Quincy Adams.

This relationship--this successful application in the Constitution of the Declaration's principles--is a major factor supporting the soundness of the conclusion that a definite, unique, American philosophy of government does exist--composed of a set of specific, fundamental, traditional principles. The governmental realities, created by the constitutional system, gave substance to these principles.

"Vindiciamus"

Vindiciamus,

For sure there is no quick fix for Americans to correct unconstitutionality. But the constitution tells Americans in "writing" exactly how and by what "force" they can control government.

Doesn't Article I, Section 2, of the constitution mean anything to you?

As far as correcting government it means everything to me. Americans, only Americans, hire (elect) every Congressman (Lawmaker) in the House of Congress and do so every two years since 1787. The House controls, or can control, the purse of the federal government; all Bills for raising federal revenue must start in the House.

I see absolutely no other "constitutional" way Americans can "forcibly" do anything at all about unconstitutionality. Do you?

You talk about education and you are correct except you do not mention educate about correcting unconstitutionality. Educating about what is going on, or what has gone on and what someone said, or religion, by all appearances is not going to make a dent in unconstitutionality.

Americans "constitutionally" reform government by voting to not reelect known criminals to legislate. There simply is no other "constitutional" way for Americans to reform government. Well, Americans can nullify any legislation and or any Amendment they feel unconstitutional and or unjustly applied when serving as a Juror simply by voting not guilty. But that's a force against "legislation" and not directly against any criminal Lawmaker. Criminal Lawmakers must be voted out of office and forced to live under the infringing legislation they enacted until that legislation is repealed by Oath honoring Lawmakers.

Allan

I am sorry,that there is no quick fix the our problem.It will take nothing short of a reform of governance in a fashion of recurrence to Constitutional principles. The solution is long term and we will have to endure more tyranny and despotism before the light of day will shine.This is because those that are in control now will not simple let go of the power they have gained and will throw our system into great convulsions in an attempt to keep us from our goals.First there must be a ground swell of recognition the a recurrence to those principles is infact what the people as a whole wish.This must start on the local level,city government.

There also and most important be an educational system that deals only with governance of the Representative Republic verity.The young must be taut proper in regards to our form of governance.This system of education must be in place for generations in order that coming generations understand how to self-govern.We in our life time may not experience the benefit of what we initiate,but what we do is for the benefit of our children.There is a term known as "practice by participation",this must become commonplace within our local societies.The best thing we can do for our young is to be able to hand them a "just" government in order that they too are to self-govern.Education is the strength of a nation,this is also true of education in preparation to self-governance.

As for the corrupt representatives we have now?Use that ground swell of indignation to remove the cancer.I would advise groups of "get out the vote" and these groups use of a recurrence to the principles of Constitutional governance,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as their mantra.
"Vindiciamus"

A 1765/2009 Call to Action--"Educate Young and Old: For Liberty"

As Timely Today as When Originally Made
If only a single idea could be said to have been held in common by all of The Founders, none would have a better claim to this distinction than the idea that sound information and education constitute the essential and best foundation upon which to build securely and enduringly--for The Individual and for the people as a whole, for the nation. The writings of The Founders are filled with appeals and admonitions to make sure of a fair future for Liberty in America through widest possible use of sound information and education; and John Adams was second to none in this regard. An especially impressive appeal of this character was made by him as part of a 1765 writing: "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law" which was first published as a series of essays in the Boston Gazette. Its value lies, in part, in its enduring quality--valuable in every year and generation and as pertinent today as when first published. This is so true, and its message is so important to the well-being of Man's Freedom from Government-over-Man in America today and in the future, that an extended quotation is believed to be justified. First he assumed to be true then a favorable situation which, it must be admitted, does not exist in America today:

"Let us presume, what is in fact true, that the spirit of liberty is as ardent as ever among the body of the nation, though a few individuals may be corrupted. . . ."

True today as to independence from foreign rule, it is not true today regarding Individual Liberty: Freedom from Government-over-Man. This melancholy fact of deterioration of the situation of Free Man in America only serves to make more important the main part of his message:

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the grounds and principles of government . . ."

After thus expressing the key idea, he continued by directing attention to one of the main areas of knowledge which should be fostered and inculcated:

"Let us read and recollect and impress upon our souls the views and ends of our own more immediate forefathers, in exchanging their native country for a dreary, inhospitable wilderness. Let us examine into the nature of that power, and the cruelty of that oppression, which drove them from their homes. Recollect their amazing fortitude, their bitter sufferings,--the hunger, the nakedness, the cold, which they patiently endured--the severe labors of clearing their grounds, building their houses, raising their provisions, amidst dangers from wild beasts and savage men, before they had time or money or materials for commerce. Recollect the civil and religious principles and hopes and expectations which constantly supported and carried them through all hardships with patience and resignation."

After this invitation to relive the harsh realities of those days in our imaginations, with emphasis however upon the sustaining things of the mind and heart and soul, he reached the key word, "liberty":

"Let us recollect it was liberty, the hope of liberty for themselves and us and ours, which conquered all discouragements, dangers, and trials. In such researches as these, let us all in our several departments cheerfully engage,--but especially the proper patrons and supporters of law, learning, and religion!"

By "learning" he referred not only to formal education but to all knowledge-gaining, in all its facets by all possible means. Then he focused attention upon the group which, in New England especially, was in that time--as before and later--so potently influential in helping to develop, nurture and propagate the ideas of "Liberty and Independence": Independence from foreign rule and Liberty of Man against Government-over-Man. This was the clergy. He appealed to them as follows:

"Let the pulpit resound with the doctrines and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear the danger of thraldom to our consciences from ignorance, extreme poverty, and dependence, in short, from civil and political slavery. Let us see delineated before us the true map of man. Let us hear the dignity of his nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God,--that consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest or happiness --and that God Almighty has promulgated from heaven, liberty, peace, and good-will to man!"

By "slavery" he of course meant, in part, subjection to tyrannous rule by a British king and Parliament. Here Adams was not urging the clergy to do something new for their group--some of them had been doing this for generations in America. Instead, he was emphasizing the need of more of the clergy to participate in this educational program in support of "Liberty and Independence" and all of them to give more attention to this cause, so crucially important to freedom of religion. He then called upon the Bar--the profession which was expected to take the lead actively in the fight and which, in every generation, is obligated to do so morally as well as otherwise; partly today because every member of the Bar--like every judge and other public official--is sworn to support the Constitution--necessarily in its true and original meaning (per page 194, ante) as intended by those who framed and adopted the initial instrument and later each of its amendments. He continued:

"Let the bar proclaim, 'the laws, the rights, the generous plan of power' delivered down from remote antiquity,--inform the world of the mighty struggles and numberless sacrifices made by our ancestors in defence of freedom . . ."

Next he came to the leading group in the realm of formal education, the colleges:

"Let the colleges join their harmony in the same delightful concert. Let every declamation turn upon the beauty of liberty and virtue, and the deformity, turpitude, and malignity, of slavery and vice [meaning mainly governmental evils from the standpoint of Free Man]. Let the public disputations become researches into the grounds and nature and ends of government, and the means of preserving the good and demolishing the evil. Let the dialogues, and all the exercises, become the instruments of impressing on the tender mind, and of spreading and distributing far and wide, the ideas of right and the sensations of freedom. In a word, let every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing."

He continued by warning of Britain's plan to enslave American colonists through the Stamp Act and other such measures; then continued:

"These are not the vapors of a melancholy mind, nor the effusions of envy, disappointed ambition, nor of a spirit of opposition to government, but the emanations of a heart that burns for its country's welfare. No one of any feeling, born and educated in this once happy country, can consider the numerous distresses, the gross indignities, the barbarous ignorance, the haughty usurpations, that we have reason to fear are meditating for ourselves, our children, our neighbors, in short, for all our countrymen and all their posterity, without the utmost agonies of heart and many tears."

The distinguished clergyman, Jonathan Mayhew, was mentioned expressly by Adams with praise for his valuable writings in support of the cause of Man's freedom in America.

This message has great significance today for all parts of American society because of the pressing need at present for sound information and education, to the end that Individual Liberty may be made and kept secure under constitutionally limited government--respected in practice and preserved in full integrity for the sake of the present generation as well as for the benefit of Posterity, for whom the present generation is merely temporary trustee.

It is only through living the principles which The Founders lived, and serving the ideals which they served, that in each generation any and every American can, in truth, render all honor to The Founders.

Could they return to the American scene now and speak a word of warning in behalf of the cause of Individual Liberty, they would perhaps be satisfied to repeat the remark of Dr. Joseph Warren--President of the Massachusetts Congress and a Major General, killed in action at Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775--in his oration in Boston on March 5, 1775 (the anniversary of the "Boston Massacre" by British troops). His words were in effect addressed to every American of every generation, faced with the never-ending need for Friends of Liberty to be faithful, vigilant and active in support of the institutions and principles which are essential to Liberty's well-being:

"Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of . . . On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves."

"Vindiciamus"

Vindiciamus,

What do you want Americans to do about their corrupt government?

Allan

the Right, power, and authority to hire (elect) government Officials and "judge" crime, criminals, and dispense justice to fellow Americans when serving on a jury did not come from God but came from the point of a gun, or weapon.

These ARE NOT rights,granted under the bill of rights.These are duties,obligations.Voting/suffrage is not a right and jury duty is not a right they are duties as Individual-responsibilities. Civil rights are NOT rights granted under the Constitution .

I am not sure where you are coming from here.I can tell you are frustrated with the system but it is not the fault of the system if it has been usurped.

We as Americans through generations of bad education have been separated from our true form of governance.We must re-teach ourselves in correct fashion back to Traditional Principles. This will never happen if we educate ourselves with speculation and assumptions. We must first understand our form of governance and why it was formed.Simply read the Declaration of Independence which our Constitution is predicated upon.Do not discount the intent of the spiritual nature of the founding fathers,even if you wish not to allow spirituality to influence how we govern ourselves today.Just take in the education as it is written and adjust it to apply to the here and now. I can tell you one thing that most do not understand and that is that there is no constitutional mandate that separates the practice of religion in regards to our governance.The separation of church and state is only implied. There is no dictate in the constitution that makes illegal for government to become involved in helping religion to be freely practiced,it only states that the congress shall make no laws to establish a church and that is all.

The Constitution was designed to translate into enduring, governmental reality the ideals, goals and principles of the Declaration of Independence. This is made clear by the inspiring words of the Constitution's Preamble. It provides the connection between these two documents--the chief link being the word "Liberty" in both--with regard especially to the expressly stated religious considerations underlying the traditional American philosophy as defined in the Declaration, notably the concept of God-given, unalienable rights.
Belief in God as the Creator of Man and the giver of his unalienable rights--unalienable because God-given--is the basis of this philosophy; which is an indivisible whole and must be accepted, or rejected, as such. The Constitution's primary role, or function, was intended to be the safeguarding of these rights of every Individual--partly through so limiting the power of the Federal government that it could never interfere with the religious life and practices of the people of the separate States (the people in each State being in complete control of pertinent policy for themselves), always involving implicitly recognition of belief in God as the only basis of the unalienable character of these rights.

The traditional American philosophy's first and fundamental principle is that "The Spiritual Is Supreme," that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material. This principle was the basis of the assertion in the Declaration of Independence that ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood under the common fatherhood of God; and it allows for no differentiation between them as to this unifying conviction.

This applies not only to those who adhere to some one of the organized religions but also to The Individual holding a strictly personal, but genuinely religious, belief--however unorthodox or strange it may seem to others. Belief in God is the common denominator here; but no element of required, religious conformity is involved.

America was colonized originally by adherents of the Christian religion, in the main, and the vast majority of them were Protestants of various denominations. The Founding Fathers nevertheless adhered faithfully to the all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion, as indicated by the affirmative and express statement in the Declaration, quoted above. This approach was also indicated, negatively, in the Constitution by way of its denying to the Federal government any power pertaining to religion--no such power was included among the few powers which were delegated to this government by the people. This denial of such power was confirmed by the later addition of the First Amendment, which expressly prohibits the Federal government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." (Here "an establishment of religion" was intended to mean only an official church organization--one controlled, supported and preferred by the government--such as the Church of England organization which then existed in some of the States.) America is, in fact, a haven for all religions and their adherents; her traditional philosophy in this regard is actually practiced.

This aspect of the American philosophy was emphasized strikingly when discussion was in progress in the legislature of Virginia regarding the Bill to establish religious freedom--finally adopted in 1786. As Jefferson observed in his "Autobiography," it was proposed during the long-continued discussion of the Bill that the reference to "the holy author of our religion" (meaning God) be changed so as to refer to Jesus Christ; but the proposal was rejected by vote of "a great majority," as Jefferson (the author of the first draft) stated:

". . . in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination." ("Mahometans" means Moslems, also called "Musselmen." Here "Infidel" means any religious believer although a non-Christian.)

The foregoing comment about America's being a haven for all religions is sound even though in some early colonial communities of a strongly religious character, such as the initial ones in Massachusetts, there was extreme intolerance on the part of the governing group which impelled some dissenters, such as Roger Williams, to leave and found settlements elsewhere. By the time of the Declaration of Independence, however, insofar as government was concerned, religious toleration was widespread in America; although it was some decades before every "establishment of religion" (to use the term of the First Amendment), as defined above, had been abolished by all of the States which had one in 1791 when the First Amendment was adopted.

It is true that the traditional American philosophy is basically religious and that America and Americans in general are a religious country and people. It is equally true that the American people are predominantly Christian in their beliefs. It is, however, unsound to characterize the Constitution of the United States government as being either religious, or Christian. The Constitution is a charter adopted by the people for defining the framework of the federated system of government composed of the central Republic and the State Republics. No such charter, in and of itself, can properly be classified as being religious; just as a government, in and of itself, cannot be so classified. This truth was the basis of the statement in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship entered into by President John Adams, a devoutly religious man and a steadfast Christian, in 1797, between the United States and Tripoli of Barbary, that:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen . . ." [Moslems]

The non-religious character of government becomes more obvious when it is considered that, under the American philosophy, the sovereign people create their governments as their tools; and no tool can be called religious. To continue with this metaphor, the government, as a tool, is created by the people according to the "blueprint" (the Constitution) which they design in order to help define the characteristics and operating limits of this tool; and no "blueprint" can be classified as religious. As a further illustration, consider the architect's "blueprints" (drawings) for a church building; the edifice will be for religious purposes but the "blueprints" cannot properly be labelled religious in nature, in and of themselves.

This would be true even if it were possible for certain purposes to classify as "religious" a government which is completely dominated by, and an official reflection of, the hierarchy of some church or denomination. Nothing could be more antithetical to the American philosophy than to consider the United States government in any such category. As President Jefferson observed in his Second Inaugural Address (1805):

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies."

By "state" authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies, Jefferson referred to those States in which the previously-mentioned, official, church organizations, or establishments--"establishments of religion"--still existed; some of which continued to exist thereafter for a number of years, in Massachusetts until 1834.

No Constitution or government, Federal or State, in America can soundly be called "religious"; and it is equally unsound, of course, to classify any of them as being Christian. This applies also to the Declaration of Independence because it is a political statement; which is true despite the fact that it expresses, in part, the fundamentally religious nature of the American-philosophy. To confuse the religious with the political in this connection impedes clear thinking and sound comprehension of the real values in both of these fields.

The infinite greatness of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as political documents, and their supreme and timeless value to all Americans--and as guidelights to all peoples--do not depend on mistaken adulation due to confused thinking on the basis of the erroneous assumption that they are religious in nature.

The foregoing conclusions do not, of course, conflict with the idea held by many people that the men who framed the Constitution were religiously inspired in performing this great task. This view is the basis, for example, of one of the tenets of two religious sects--the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)--whose members are admonished, if not obligated, by the teachings of their respective founders, as a matter of religious duty, to be loyal to the Constitution. There is striking and express support for the belief in such religious inspiration on the part of The Framers in a statement by Benjamin Franklin--not ardently affiliated with any organized religion, with any "establishment of religion," but ever a firm believer in God; though he is erroneously assumed by some to have been a skeptic, a non-believer in God, because of his fame as a scientific-minded person. This statement was published by him during the period of ratification of the Constitution, in The Federal Gazette & the Philadelphia Evening Post of April 8, 1788, in part as follows:

"To conclude, I beg I may not be understood to infer, that our general convention was divinely inspired when it formed the new federal constitution, merely because that constitution has been unreasonably and vehemently opposed; yet I must own, I have so much faith in the general government of the world by PROVIDENCE, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent and beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being." (Text per newspaper original.)

In the preceding year, during the debates in the Framing Convention, Franklin had recommended the invocation of Divine guidance of the deliberations of that body, partly in these words:

"The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks . . . is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding . . . how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?"

(The Franklin quotations on page 5, ante, are of particular interest here.) That Divine Providence--Man's Creator, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence--was influential in guiding The Framers in their work in the 1787 Convention is a belief shared by others, too. Note, for example, the assertion by Charles Pinckney, one of this group, in 1788 that he was skeptical at the outset as to the prospect of success of the undertaking due to the conflicting interests involved, and was amazed at the final result, believing that:

"Nothing less than that superintending hand of Providence, that so miraculously carried us through the war (in my humble opinion), could have brought it [the Constitution] about so complete, upon the whole."

Hamilton expressed a similar view soon after the Framing Convention adjourned, in a published essay commenting on the proposed Constitution's system of government:

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." (Emphasis Hamilton's.)

Madison agreed, as he made expressly clear in The Federalist (no. 37). One more illustration is the resolution adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on September 25, 1789 recommending that the President proclaim a day of Thanksgiving to God and prayer by the people of the entire nation:

"acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness."

It is sometimes mistakenly asserted that the words of the original Constitution contain no recognition of the existence of God. Besides a formal reference in the closing (execution) clause: "the year of our Lord 1787," Article VI requires an oath, or affirmation, of office by all officials, Federal and State, to support the Constitution. This is in the same sentence prohibiting any religious test for Federal office; which makes it clear that such an oath of office was not considered by The Framers and Adopters of the Constitution to be such a prohibited test. As understood by them, as well as their fellow leaders and the people in general, such an oath (or affirmation, in the alternative, by those whose religious convictions bar their "swearing") is fundamentally religious--in effect and impliedly acknowledging belief in, and invoking punishment by, a Supreme Being (as the oath-taker conceives such a Being, without any degree of enforced, religious conformity) for any failure to tell the truth or other falsification, as the case may be. The reference by The Framers in this document in this indirect way to religion, evidencing recognition of God, was emphasized by John Quincy Adams in his previously quoted "Jubilee" address on April 30, 1839:

"The constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union, not only of the general but of all the state governments, should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law, to give it strength; and this confirmation of an appeal to the responsibilities of a future omnipotent judge, was in exact conformity with the whole tenor of the Declaration of Independence--guarded against abusive extension by a further provision . . ." [against a religious test for Federal office].

To repeat, the Constitution cannot soundly be classified as a religious document; but in the foregoing respects, for example, it is intimately bound up with recognition of the existence of God and with an assumption of the profound connection of this recognition with sound self-government. Furthermore, as the pertinent quotations presented in the first portion of this study-guide indicate, it was the firm conviction of The Founders that religion is the basis of morality and that firm religious conviction and faith are, therefore, essential to sound morality among a people; just as sound morality was considered by them to be essential to sound character of Individuals and of the people of a country, as the only firm basis upon which successful self-government could be created and endure.

It is also of special interest to note in this connection that the philosophy of the American people, through the generations preceding the period of the Declaration of Independence and the framing of the Constitution as well as during this period, was characterized in the main by a dominant element of the religious. This philosophy, underlying these two instruments as discussed previously, was as we have seen actively and substantially influenced by religious leaders--chief of all clergymen of New England in the long course of their own gradually developing struggle toward "Liberty and Independence" within the realm of religion as well as with regard to their role as citizens in the field of government: that is, independence of country from foreign control accompanied by Individual Liberty, especially in the realm of conscience and all things religious--freedom of conscience and freedom of The Individual to reason and to decide religious questions himself without interference by any superintending, earthly Authority. These developments within the realm of religious thinking strongly influenced and fostered the kindred developments, in the governmental realm, which culminated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Various sound volumes devoted to this subject--especially the role of the New England clergy in the development of the philosophy leading up to 1776, make inspiring and enlightening reading for any student of the fundamentals of the traditional American philosophy. They participated in governmental activities, moreover--notably in Town-meetings--during consideration of fundamental matters; and, for instance, thirteen clergymen were members of the Constitutional Convention of 1779-1780 in Massachusetts which framed this State's first Constitution.

There is an important consideration which needs to be kept in mind by every generation, including especially the Clergy and all others particularly interested in preserving religious liberty--freedom of conscience--in America, with fullest protection under the Constitution. This is that freedom of conscience and religion is only one aspect of the indivisible whole of Individual Liberty and must stand or fall with the other parts; it cannot be treated separately and preserved, as observed in 1776 by the Reverend John Witherspoon--president of Princeton College and a signer of the Declaration of Independence:

"There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage."

Samuel Adams asserted the same conclusion as to civil and religious liberty in 1774: "they rise and fall together." Hamilton also observed in the same year in this regard that: "if the foundation of the one be sapped, the other will fall of course." In the 1785 document drafted by Madison: "A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments"--opposing a tax in Virginia to support "teachers of the Christian religion," it was stated in conclusion:

"Because, finally, 'the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience' is held by the same tenure with all our other rights."

An impressive expression of a similar view was contained in a letter written by the General Association of Congregational Ministers of Connecticut, in their Annual Meeting on June 22, 1774, to the clergy of beseiged Boston, stating:

"We consider you as suffering in the common cause of America--in the cause of civil liberty; which, if taken away, we fear would involve the ruin of religious liberty also . . ."

In other words, religious liberty and all other liberties stand, or fall, together; they can be secure only to the extent that their governmental foundation is preserved in its full integrity, only to the extent that the Constitution is respected in its original, true and only meaning--as intended by those who framed and adopted the initial instrument and each amendment--subject only to the people's exclusive power to change it, which can be done solely by amendment.

"Vindiciamus"

Vindiciamus,

It is not a spirit or spiritual or spirituality that "infringes" on our Rights, that infringing demon is "GOVERNMENT". It is "Americans", not God's, duty to control their government. Americans' government operates outside the Constitution by Officials dishonoring their Oath of Office.

You are incorrect that all our Rights came from God; the Right, power, and authority to hire (elect) government Officials and "judge" crime, criminals, and dispense justice to fellow Americans when serving on a jury did not come from God but came from the point of a gun, or weapon.

Allan

Allan

It is "We the People" that elect our representative to government.It is we the people that need to make sure we elect the most virtues among us to do so.I am NOT preaching God here and I am NOT implying any specific religion.Even an atheist can have a good moral spirit and is capable of making good decisions in governance.We the people are not doing our job correctly.We are not to elect anyone that does not have the Protection of our Constitution first and foremost as they are oathed to do.We are not supposed to elect those that make promises of free hand outs and governmental nanny care.Anain I am NOT preaching here about religion,heck I don't even go to church,but I do understand the importance of religion/spirituality in regards to governance,especially our form of governance.If we as a people adhere to the fact that our unalienable rights are bestowed upon/to us by a higher power or being then we cannot discount this one of the most important principles.It enables us to consider and elect those that will do the best job and have our Constitutions protection foremost in their concerns.

The Traditional American Philosophy
3. Unalienable Rights - From God

". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.

The Only Moral Basis

2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."

One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing

3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man's unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man--in his capacity to be self-governing--is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.

Rights--as Prohibitions Against Government

4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements "in reverse"--by way of express prohibitions against government. The word "right" does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government--created by them through this basic law--as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.

The Constitution's first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only--supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations--or a partial Bill of Prohibitions--as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only "just" (limited) powers--primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, "the people surrender nothing;" instead, they merely delegate to government--to public servants as public trustees--limited powers and therefore, he added, "they have no need of particular reservations" (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.

An Endless List of Rights

5. To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.

Right To Be Let Alone

6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man's right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right of most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual's rights is precluded.

Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others

7. Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).

Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

An Offender's Just Punishment

9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.

The Conclusion

10. Man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable--because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.

"Vindiciamus"

I am dumbfounded, i am only showing you truths backed by resurchablr documentation. These are lessons concerning our True form of governance and the principles behind it’s framing.This IS where America has gone wrong by not continueing to educate the proper history of our Governance.

“Vindiciamus”

In time we will see that most Americans aptly take charge, and all this bickering is for naught. What didnt happen in the 30's will in fact happen now BECAUSE of the fact that we can and often do backtrack what is said with the world wide database callled the web.

The issue I have Is that people come in to this realization late in the game and go through old emotional phases, well they are old hat to me, classic psych symptomology of denial anger and acceptance.

This persuit of knowledge is 27 yrs old to me, i have been a dedicated researcher the last 3-4 of those years. What people need to realize is that humans thrive on knowing the truth for the most part and in the end it will be mankinds saving grace. Things happen when and as they should. There isnt a whole lot of time for DR House standards of bashing people into realization, either they get on board before we lose our freedoms or they get on board in the stockade fema camps.

persevere in your life and doctrine.

Allan Hampton Says:

Look in the mirror - there you will see the person that is obligated to “enforce” the Law of the Constitution (Oath of Office) on government Officials and the constitutional power to do that is “written” in Article I, Section 2.

An American is also obligated to protect fellow Americans, whether they are spiritual or not, from government abuse with legislation by serving on a Jury (two of them). The power to serve on a Jury is “written” in Amendments 5, 6 and 7, of the Bill of Rights.

God will save souls into the hereafter but Americans are obligated to save each other’s ass from government abuse in the here and now.

, that is the very nature of what MUST happen, but people cannot do it if they dont realize it is within their power. i dont seek to win any converts I take it in my hands and empower myself and if others follow so much the merrier we are together.

Once the truths are known action should be simple and intuitive.

Vindiciamus,

Seems we agree government is corrupt and you say because those in government lack spirituality. OK, who is obligated to get spirituality for those without it?

Can you or I force spirituality on anyone else? Do you expect government to force spirituality on everyone, or expect God to do that?

Look in the mirror - there you will see the person that is obligated to "enforce" the Law of the Constitution (Oath of Office) on government Officials and the constitutional power to do that is "written" in Article I, Section 2.

An American is also obligated to protect fellow Americans, whether they are spiritual or not, from government abuse with legislation by serving on a Jury (two of them). The power to serve on a Jury is "written" in Amendments 5, 6 and 7, of the Bill of Rights.

God will save souls into the hereafter but Americans are obligated to save each other's ass from government abuse in the here and now.

Allan

I am dumbfounded, i am only showing you truths backed by resurchablr documentation. These are lessons concerning our True form of governance and the principles behind it's framing.This IS where America has gone wrong by not continueing to educate the proper history of our Governance.

"Vindiciamus"

"A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy
2. Fear of Government-over-Man"

hell and people call me a theorist , jesus christ man !!! maybe that speaks for some but not for me.

On that I will simply disconnect and wish you all well in this "discussion"

Allan

To read the files sign up as a member and after you are done reviewing the info simply remove yourself from the forum.

As far as the first principle is concerned it is trying to explain that one must be of a spiritual nature,and NEEDS to understand that the "Declaration of Independence is what our Constitution is predicated upon.In doing so one excepts that if there is a creator,Christian or otherwise,he by his spiritual nature will adhere to a virtues conscious and not stray from the original intent of governance. If one believes in a spiritual higher power as the Declaration implies then that leaves open acceptance to receive unalienable rights,which the Constitution protects.

A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy
2. Fear of Government-over-Man

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" - Thomas Jefferson (Kentucky Resolutions)

The Principle

1. A main principle of the traditional American philosophy is expressed in the phrase: fear of Government-over-Man.

Cause of Fear

2. This fear is due to the ever-present, never-changing weaknesses of human nature in government which are conducive to "love of power and proneness to abuse it," as Washington's Farewell Address warned. This means public officials' human weaknesses, especially as aggravated by the corresponding weaknesses among the self-governing people themselves. It is a truism that government's power needs only to exist to be feared--to be dominant, over the fear-ridden, without ever needing to be exercised aggressively.

Man--Good and Evil, Mixed

3. This philosophy asserts that human nature is a mixture of good and evil, of strength and weakness, and is not perfectible during life on earth. There is "a portion of virtue and honor among Mankind" and the better side of Man, the Individual, can be strengthened and made more dependable through spiritual growth. The resulting moral development is conducive to sound conduct, in keeping with conscience in the light of a personal moral code based upon religious-moral considerations. Yet history teaches that the previously mentioned weaknesses of human nature provide just cause for never-ceasing fear of Government-over-Man.

Government Like a Fire

4. Americans of the period 1776-1787 firmly believed in the soundness of the accepted maxim that "government is like a fire: a dangerous servant and a fearful master;" that, to be useful, it must be strictly controlled for safety against its getting out of hand and doing great harm. Through the generations, the people have considered that this maxim expresses one of history's most profoundly important lessons for Free Man. This maxim is based upon the knowledge that, in last analysis, government is force and must be feared and controlled accordingly. The great fear in 1787-1788 of the new, central government under the proposed Constitution was evidenced by the fact that the State Ratifying Conventions proposed scores of amendments, designed chiefly to keep under more rigid control what they considered to be this potential monster of power so dangerous to their liberties: the central, or Federal, government.

The Views of Jefferson and Madison and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

5. This fear was of abuse by government of power granted to it by the people, as well as of usurpation by it of power denied or prohibited to it by them, through the Constitution, to the injury if not doom of their liberties--of the God-given, unalienable rights of The Individual. Jefferson merely voiced the lesson of history--well known to, and accepted by, his fellow Americans--when he stated, in the "Diffusion of Knowledge" Bill in 1779, in the Virginia legislature:

". . . experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government], those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny . . ."

Jefferson also expressed this traditional, American viewpoint in his famous writing known as the Kentucky Resolutions, as adopted in 1798 by the Kentucky legislature, in these words in part:

". . . it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism: free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go; . . . In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

These Kentucky Resolutions are closely akin to the contemporaneous Virginia Resolutions of 1798 adopted soon afterward by the Virginia legislature--written mainly by Madison who was, as usual, in close touch with Jefferson in this period. Both sets of resolutions were protests against what were considered and denounced as abuses and usurpations of power by the Federal government--chiefly through the Alien and Sedition Laws adopted by Congress in 1798. Such protests by a State legislature were in keeping with the remedies available to the States in such a situation - remedies contemplated by The Framers as being within the constitutional system--as discussed, for example, by Madison in 1788 in The Federalist number 46. The Sedition Act was designed to restrict freedom of speech and of the Press so as to stifle criticism of Federal officials and therefore grossly violated the Constitution; and it was opposed, for example, by John Marshall, as a member of Congress, and by Alexander Hamilton--the latter stating: "Let us not establish a tyranny." (These laws soon disappeared from the statute books, due to their widespread unpopularity which the above-mentioned 1798 resolutions had helped initially to foster.)

Precedents for Other States' Protests Such As The Hartford Convention Resolutions

6. These 1798 protests by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures were not the first such development in the life of the Republic. A predecessor resolution of protest, for example, had been adopted by the Virginia legislature in 1790: the "Protest and Remonstrance" against the assumption by the Federal government of the war-incurred debts of the States, as being unconstitutional. This protest set a precedent for the above-mentioned 1798 resolutions. They, in turn, set precedents for similar resolutions of protest adopted by various States--in New England, the North, the Mid-west as well as in the South--during the following decades when they considered themselves to be victimized, potentially or actually, by either abuses or usurpations of power by the Federal government; such developments being the subject of comment, for example, by former President John Quincy Adams in his celebrated "Jubilee" address of April 30, 1839. (Some of these later resolutions even relied on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 as a precedent.) An example is the set of resolutions adopted in 1815, during the war with England, by the Hartford Convention--representing Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire--protesting against what were considered to be Federal usurpations, potential or actual, regarding use of the States' Militia in war operations and other national defense matters.

The View of Patrick Henry

7. In the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry protested with vehemence against the proposed new Constitution's lack of adequate limits on the central government's power, lack of sufficient safeguards against governmental abuses due to human weaknesses among its officials, saying:

"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."

The American People's View Also Expressed in the Pittsfield Petition of 1776

8. These quoted sentiments were accepted as maxims by American leaders in general and by the American people as a whole in that generation of Free Men--free in spirit and willing to fight and die for their Freedom from Government-over-Man. This acceptance is illustrated by the below-quoted words of the Pittsfield, Massachusetts, town-meeting petition of a decade earlier, in May, 1776. It was penned by the Reverend Thomas Allen, ardent friend of American Independence and of Man's Liberty against Government-over-Man. It stated why Massachusetts needed a new, basic law of the people, a Constitution to be adopted by the people only, in part as follows:

"That knowing the strong bias of human nature to tyranny and despotism, we have nothing else in view but to provide for posterity against the wanton exercise of power, which cannot otherwise be done than by the formation of a fundamental constitution."

This petition reflected the sentiments of the frontier, "backwoods" people of Berkshire County, led by this patriot as head of "The Berkshire Constitutionalists," over a decade before the 1787 Federal Convention framed the United States Constitution. These were truly the sentiments of the American people at large. They are in harmony with the later phrasing of this idea as follows in The Federalist (number 55, by Madison):

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence."

Never-changing Weaknesses of Human Nature Create Never-changing Need for Safeguards

9. The never-changing need for, and value of, constitutional safeguards against abuse, or usurpation, of power by public servants--as contemplated, and as provided for, by The Framers and Adopters of the Constitution in 1787-1788 and by those who proposed, framed and adopted the first ten Amendments (including the Bill of Rights made applicable against the Federal, or central, government only)--are due to the never-changing weaknesses of human nature in government and among the self-governing people. These weaknesses never change; therefore the need for these safeguards can never change.

The Conclusion

10. Fear of Government-over-Man was the dominant fear in that day of uncompromisingly individualistic Americans--Free Men, ever jealous of the safety of Individual Liberty, of the security of their God-given, unalienable rights against violation by government.

Vindiciamus,

I thank you for your efforts but from my perspective you are mixing apples and oranges. For myself, I'll leave religion entirely up to the free choice of the individual and government completely out of the religious picture.

God's law is supreme only over those individuals that accept it freely; that includes those individuals serving in a government position. The punishment for those individuals that do not accept God's law is death. God is the judge and enforcer of his law and will enforce his law in his own good time - after the death of the individual - to my best understanding. Only God, not man or man's government, is the judge of sin and sinners.

Government legislation (law) is enforced by government; legislation outside delegated powers is unconstitutional, not valid and null and void.

Constitutional Law is American's supreme Law of the Land and private, non-government, Americans are obligated to enforce that Law on government Officials. Americans are obligated to judge, not sin & sinners, but crime and criminals. Americans' vehicle of enforcement is written in the Constitution at; Article I, Section 2, and Amendments 5, 6, and 7, of the Bill of Rights.

BTW I could not access "files" at your site without being a member.

Allan

Click on the files section,first we need to relearn what our form of Governance really is. Below is but the first of 12 spicific Principles that our founding fathers intended.If you wish i can post all 12 here on this list for all to read.

A Principle of the Traditional American Philosophy
1. The Spiritual is Supreme
". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.

Religious Nature

2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.

An Indivisible Whole

3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

The Individual's Self-respect

4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.

Some Things Excluded

5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.

The Truly American Concept

6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.

America a Haven For All Religions

7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.

The Conclusion

8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.

"Vindiciamus"

Vindiciamus,

I visited the site and all I could read is your description which I agree with. We agree our government Officials do not honor their Oath of Office. What do you suggest we the People do about that or government unconstitutionality in general?

Allan

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theconfederatenation...

Please visit and learn the 12 Basic Principles of Representative Republic for free.Please overlook the title of the forum and explore the files section of the site.

"Vindiciamus"

Friends:

I can't make heads or tails out of some of the stuff which has been posted on this page. Here is George Orwell's classic essay on HOW TO WRITE so that one can be understood: "Politics and the English Language."

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/engli...

The goal is to eliminate all pomposity in writing. Read it & Learn! PH

Writing is hard work: It takes time to translate

Vern,
(You have been programed to react to passion and conviction as a “psychological technique”. )

We have all been programmed larry , look at hwere we are due to the fact that we didnt take the initiative.when you point one finger three point back.

(Contrary to your politically correct approach to debate, Not every strong word should be taken as a personal attack. While It is wildy popular to defend our position by taking offense to an otherwise perfectly suitable tone concerning this subject ( politics ) your reply shows that we first communicate that we have been offended. In doing this we have achieved our objective of steering the debate in a direction that emphasises feelings, and sensitivity, instead of addressing the questions or defending our statements.)
That is one way of viewing it where as another is that we are in control and never lost control and even if they burned the bill of rights it is within our power to assert them and condemning others is counter productive. naysayers simply need to be ignored.

(A very predictable approach to ending debate by one who cannot defend their position)
I for one and I suspect you are quite capable of defending our positions, i dont need to attempt to discredit you because like it or not we NEED to work together, here again the so called programming causes friction, in the lack of ability to unify.
We dont need to argue we need to act, we dont need to petition less than patriotic americans because there are enough of us to do an effective job.
Trust in your vision and act on that , all should do the same and realize there isnt time to nitpick techniques, there is only time to do what you feel you must.

RE: larry
Dont judge me as that larry, You dont know me in any sense and its pretentious to assume you do.

A call to brotherhood sent to everyone in our state offices and our federal offices
July 8th, 2009 / Author: Verndewd
I have some inside info that I wont divulge in any sense but this,

Certain groups are very angry about legislators calling americans homegrown terrorists, the more unconstitutional laws that are passed the more the chatter increases and the chatter isnt good.

I think its past time that all of you commit yourselves to the founding fathers vision and to american people as sovereign citizens who are in charge of their government.

I highly recomend you engage in a public campaign to bond together as brothers of this great nation ASAP I may not get more of this information but what i have heard is major. people are sick of Government not holding itself accountable to the people, you can forget the cia civil unrest guidelines brothers and sisters, these globalist bankers dont know the day or hour that they will be forced to account for their manipulation of you and us.

http://theruthlesstruth.com/wordpress/?p=2588 we wont tolerate rothschilds issuing such statements to the effect that it lessens american sovereignty. time to rally around the flag boys and girls.

http://theruthlesstruth.com/wordpress/?p=2575 i dont care what pope issues what statement about one world control of anything, that isnt what america is about.

You are charged with making your patriotic commitment known !!! make it so. if we need to pass laws against tyrants and traitors to ward off electronic id and forced RFID implants we have a serious problem. You will prove your patriotism or be fired.

The common causation of today ills is the abduction of society into a great social experiment according to theories that are now known to be false.

THE COMMON CAUSATION: article, adjective, adverbial noun, subject = what made things happen, to cause an effect

OF TODAY’S ILLS: prepositional adjective, prepositional object: (ILLS) = effect of this causation.

IS: verb, 3rd present singular of ‘be’ = the action of becoming what we are now

THE ABDUCTION: predicate nominative, describes or renames the subject (CAUSATION) = to carry off by force or deception

Of society: prepositional adjective of ABDUCTION = general population

INTO A GREAT SOCIAL EXPERIMENT: prepositional adjective of (ABDUCTION); prepositional object: EXPERIMENT = testing for discovery of the unknown or to verify a supposition.

ACCORDING TO THEORIES: nominal preposition extending the verb ‘is’; prepositional object: THEORIES = hypotenuse, proposed explanation.

THAT ARE NOW KNOWN: subordinate phrase modifying the objective noun (THEORIES); verb: ARE: 3rd present plural of ‘be’; adverb: NOW = present time; predicate nominative describes or renames subordinate phrase subject (THEORIES): KNOWN = understand from experience.

TO BE FALSE: prepositional adjective of ‘known’ = conclusion of what we know from experience, the theory is false.

HOPE THIS HELPS. The theories and means of abduction are further down in the post. -JOS

Joseph Ferrara!
Re your post of July 6 at 10:00 p.m.:

For your homework, diagram that first sentence! Then the second, then the third.....

I have no idea what you are talking about! PH

Vern,
You have been programed to react to passion and conviction as a "psychological technique". Contrary to your politically correct approach to debate, Not every strong word should be taken as a personal attack. While It is wildy popular to defend our position by taking offense to an otherwise perfectly suitable tone concerning this subject ( politics ) your reply shows that we first communicate that we have been offended. In doing this we have achieved our objective of steering the debate in a direction that emphasises feelings, and sensitivity, instead of addressing the questions or defending our statements. A very predictable approach to ending debate by one who cannot defend their position.

excellent commentary ,Joseph.

The common causation of today ills is the abduction of society into a great social experiment according to theories that are now known to be false.

This is easily seen with a rudimentary understanding of American philosophy: Pragmatictism as developed by Charles Pierce (not known by most because while it may be referenced it is not taught in schools). A fundamental axiom of pragmaticism is the full abduction of society, i.e. a free flow of knowledge from the highest studies to the most humble task. As an American philosophy predicated on Individual Sovereignty, access to knowledge is the primary factor for a successful self-directed life both personally and socially.

The 20th century marks a time when experimental social theories, now known to be false, were imposed on society through the consolidation of thinking and activity among banking, industry and the usurping the people’s linage and legacy of self governance with election fraud and continued violations of the public trust in media, medicine and education.

Two predicates of the theories adapted by industrialists at the turn of the last century in their aspiration of creating the perfect industrial society are:

1. The human being is a product of the environment; therefore, if you can control the environment you can control the development of humanity.

2. The body is a machine that can be studied and understood for efficient maintenance; that thoughts and emotions are complex chemical equations in response to external stimulus.

Enshrining these two theories as the exclusive, official doctrine of public education, medical research and social policy, constricted the development and flow of knowledge and traditional American medical and educational practices were declared foolish and often illegal.

With this centralized dictate of knowledge and study, our social contract was shifted from one of individual sovereignty and the development of personal power for a successful self-directed life to one of human resources trained for specific tasks that were deemed by ‘experts’ to be beneficial to an industrial society. Creative expression was replaced with industrial production as a measure of personal wealth and social progress.

The result of wrong thinking is every where to be seen. Society is the aggregate of individuals. Restore social health by restoring, improving personal health.

"Government that governs best, governs the least," Thomas Jefferson

We've be taught this to be a wishful aphorism. In practice, this idiom was the aim of many among the world's first self declared sovereign citizens. The establishment of the united States of America could be seen as the world's first successful slave revolt. Many knew the legend of Spartacus. The folks in that day tried their best to get along with the royals, who would have none of it that wasn't subservient.

The justification of government was to maintain order among the ignorant masses, to extract taxes for providing this service and to make laws to regulate public behavior and to finance exploratory adventures. The American logic, now free from any royal or papal injunction, is that if a group of people can live in mutual defense, and live by a common law of behavior, there would be less and less need for government regulation except for organizing collectives for the common good.

Three things took hold in early 1800s America:

The peace movement put forth a millennium vision of day when the general society would be learned and sophisticated in knowledge and good grace.

The abolition movement was and still is today the world's only true end of slavery with a vision of fulfilling the declaration of that "all Men are created equal."

The woman's equality movement was begun not by resentful victims but by fathers and brothers and mothers and daughters and sons knowing that a capital "M" for man included all of humanity.

These were not movements of aggression, agitation or anger, they were movements of vision, education, discipline and practice of the principles they professed. This is the lineage of all American citizens then, today and forever.

The common characteristic of a conquered nation is the lack of lineage.

Stop complaining. Declare your sovereignty and start learning and living in the lineage of a self-directed life with principle and purpose.

Of course, it's easier said than done. But, the alternative is slavery -- sophisticated, less brutal, even comfortable -- with most of the country being little more than upscale labor camps.

One way is to Just Stop.

One suggestion is for We the People to use these internet tools to schedule a week long holiday. No work, no school, suspend all obligations without penalty. Spend the time with family, friends and neighbors. Organize teach ins to educate and discuss the ways for local sustainability. Take care of the needy and have a good time free from all stress and take time to create your own vision of the future we will leave to our children.

We don't need them - banker, industrialists, investors -- they need us. Our world isn't falling apart. Their world is falling apart. Just let it go. There is genius in every man and woman in every street in every town. Let's just take a week off from this foolishness and restore a New Health to ourselves, our families and our community.

Yes. these sketches need to be filled our and yes, there are other ideas that seem more productive than writing letters to criminals to please not do such bad things to me, or, please stop breaking the rules.

also rather than some shallow and predesigned package called transparency I suggest that we americans push for public regulator standards and commitees.

All manner of american affairs be they domestic or foreign need a public forum without the corporate constraints of the puppet government.

We have to draw the line in the sand, and once we do and gain some momentum , more americans will join ranks. All government affairs need public regulatory oversight; of course in varying stages pertaining to the nature of their senitivity.

I like to think of it in terms of getting hold of something; when your hands are on it and your grasp is firm it cannot do other than you allow.

thats what is needed and that is what we should do.

and larry our efforts arent in vain

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vie...

here is ONE example of a patriotic representative doing her job to protect americans. and there are more and the numbers are growing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbvCrEI8-Gg

Larry , I went through the same frustrations brother, I wasnt as condemnatory in public as you are but I know what youre feeling.

America is divided into sections of belief , while pro constitutionalists are a rapidly growing segment the effective part of the populace we need to turn the tide is corporate bound.

Alot of people with corporate jobs that make good money steer clear of this type of dialogue as if it were a plague. The facts are that it needs to get alot worse for them before they act. And by the time that happens many of us will be seeded deeply in our own processes and they could be on their own to learn what they need to.

larry you seem to forget that an intentional psychological war has been waged on america for over 60 yrs, being that most americans arent savvy to psychological technique your condemnation comes off as short sighted and selfish emotional outbursting.

A proper perspective is do what you think you must and stop worrying about the other guy. Ypou cant get anything accomplished thinking about what others dont do or what you perceive to be a lack of action.

You have to have faith in your own walk and perfect it as much as possible before others see the light you bear and follow.

Right on Larry, you gotta wonder about some of the people posting here and everywhere, do they know what they are saying or merely repeating enemy misleading lingo they are told to say?

The Tenth Amendment Center is, seems to me, about the Constitution, or more specifically about a part of the Constitution, Amendment X. I think it is a mistake for Americans to view the Constitution as a menu to pick and choose from it what they want to support. The menu concept breeds infighting/misunderstanding among Americans and is the root cause of the demise of Constitutional America. What American in a correct American mind could support unconstitutionality?

What American could support Congress funding and arming Israel for 60 years? What American could support U.S. Troops involved in Congress' criminal (unconstitutional) activity at home and abroad? What American, or American Entity, is delegated the authority to judge sin and sinners?

Americans are constitutionally obligated to judge crime and criminals but only in the USA, not around the world.

Americans have truly lost their constitutional mind and know not their Duty in Citizenship, which basically is to enforce their Law, the Constitution, on government Officials.

Allan