Rob Natelson: A Constitutional Coup d’etat

One of the most intriguing things Prof. Natelson said in this podcast was near the end:

"If people want to restore the Fed Gov to its constitutional authority, it's going to require a lot more than an occasional, useful case ... It's going to require popular outrage, and it probably also, this late in the game, is going to require one or two constitutional amendments. Probably more than one."

Well, what might those amendments be? Is this a "cliffhanger" for the next broadcast?

Perhaps an amendment to repeal the income tax amendment? Repeal the 17th amendment? An amendment to better define the terms "general welfare", "commerce", and "necessary and proper" as used in the Constitution?

Also wondering how widespread the "pass an amendment to restore the Constitution" idea is. Sounds good, but what are the pros and cons of this approach? Are there also other good approaches (ie what are all the options)?

Try straddling more than one issue?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109347

Move a little ome way or the other, change a comma, and not be seen doing so...
Causing a extremely slow shift through long term efforts, change or initiate a municiple ordinance, and offer a slant on county regulation...
Over time The Precident gets set and accepted.
'We see too many understand this effort, so we'll change it so the rules change in the middle of the game.'
Our group will be offering new ways to defeat these efforts (see above link).
The people in majority will have to take a stand in direct opposition to the federal system as it now exists.
Only when this takes place will the people regain sovereignty.

Ladies and gentlemen we may have a problem.
This an earth shattering, all inclusive that will screw it all up...
The link:
http;//www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090906_it_could_be_the_end_of_our_democracy_as_we_know_it
The supreme court is looking into letting corporations directly contribute to elections...!
Gettin close to the raising of the Communist Chinese flag at the white house...
Link:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=108907
This is not good...

HAY, professor!
Have I got a class project for you...!
Any Constitutional Lawyers in here?
Wanna have a party...hmmm?
Talk about needing tums an takin the stiff outta the starch...
This is gettin to be too much fun!

The District is gaining status through representation recently granted.
The ideal here is to subjugate and establish through precedence, as was the granted representation.
I agree that the easiest way to control the fed is through monetary control. I offered a state holding bank that keeps/holds the monies generated in that state, fed, local. etc.
The other elephant in the room is for any one of the several states to offer your exact take against the fed.
In order to do so will require elimination of corporate status to any government entity. A return to common law will disallow the use of admiralty statute laws.
As I've stated before, this will require a lot of work by a lot of people.
Sending the corporate/admiralty legal system back to England is only the first step.
The financial system will have to extracate itself from English control, such as the LIBOR, etc. America may have to partially close its system while trying to maintain an international involvement.
Further I offer that Common Law being based towards the people, might be more easily adjusted to fit through concise definition and amendment.
In reality, talking about this is fine, but we (USA) need to try to start this very quickly as the wolves are at the door.
Writing the concept, announcing it as intended, and taking whatever action is required to implement, etc.
Anyone up to this? Apart of it? Funding? Presentation?
A thousand million questions now raise their heads...
Reality is a bummer until coffee...

Professor Natelson, I am familiar with the concept that the people created both their state and the federal goverment, just as you know King George III signed over his sovereign authority to the thirteen colonies in the Treaty in France in 1783 (I think) and named each of the states in the document. The Constitution of the united States is not the primary social relation of those who formed it. The state governments were already organized. Abel Parker Upshur's very good book, "A Brief Enquiry Into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government" makes a very good argument about the difficulty - under the Common Law of England - of declaring "We the People.." a valid expression of the peoples of the various states at the time it was first penned. No such political body could have existed under the common law of England. The idea that the people of these states were, while colonists, and, consquently, are now, "one people," in some sense which has never been explained, and to some extent which has never been defined, is constantly inculcated by those who are anxious to consolidate all the powers of the states in the federal government.

The exercise, by the federal government, of the powers delegated to it by the States is always in subordination to the authority by whom its powers were conferred. While their "game" has continued, and the federal government has been unstopped in further delegating its power (contra to the long held axiom "delegata potestas non potest delegari")to coin money to the Federal Reverse, and continuously expand its borrowing powers to press temptation to the hilt. As Mr. Boldin has pointed out, if we all just say "No" to taking federal funds, their jurisdiction would evaporate shortly thereafter.

My attempt is also to say there is no higher political body than the State in the common law of England. The federal government, acting in the capacity as the entity delegated certain duties and responsibilities in the Constitution is not a State, but, rather, a corporation. Will cite the case law that provides that opinion later.

A corporation cannot exericse the same sovereign authority as the state. It follows that in order to assert any jurisdiction over a group of people, the federal government is required to establish itself as a State....which it has not done, unless we consider the District of Columbia a State...!?

The exacting reference to adresses subjecting residents is very correct.
In order to subjugate these 'powers' I offer that one must stay outside their 'legal' (questionable) reach.
In order to do so, do not 'pass the bar' in any of the 'maritime court' system. The judge nor armed guards have jurisdiction over you.
In so doing, a freeman remains free of the corporate powers used through the corporation known as The Federal Government, United States of America Inc., etc.
All statute law is of corporate/admiralty origine and has no jurisdiction on dry land.
Within this are the hidden aspects of capitalization of name, abreviation, etc. DRAKE BAILEY is corporate, while Drake Bailey is subject, and drake bailey is the freeman, the fully free man represents the free man and may not be illegally labeled by surname...
Then too, a small number in the corner of your birth certificate enumerates you as a share of stock in The Incorporated United States under The Federal Reserve...
Behind all this are several layers of 'shadow' government, special opps, etc.
In back of these are the several 'agents' orchestrating, and... again further from view are the corporate owners/bankers who have most of the base financial control.
In all the historical incidents perpetrated by unknown forces resides the basic profit/loss schemes of these entities. Absolute control of finances offers invisible lobbying using 'leverage'.
When these forces were made aware of resistance to several recent laws, the several representatives were offered martial law threats.
The owners of the billions have told the bankers, 'the money is mine, I own it. Under no circumstances are you to touch it for any reason...' Hence Billion$ sit...
We have proof of almost all of these allegations...in one form or another.
Radical and off the wall? Or maybe truth 'they' don't want outed?
We have several in places that can't be mentioned here, AND we contact them in ways our lovin gov can't trace...da gov luvs that...
If needed there is no inside above top secret info we can't get hold of, in official form too!
What has changed is that 'they' no longer fear that their plans will be impacted if known.
They believe they have sufficient manpower (military/police) to handle the people with relative ease.
In addition, certain legalities offer them the perfect 'right' to target all of us.
Everything you do is corporate knowledge, and I do mean everything. So forget privacy, as these lists are for sale... Most everything you do is catagorized, all your private numbers, bank access codes-PIN, what you do when you walk into your house, drink, TV channel, computer access, and even the bedroom ain't private anymore...OOOEEE!!!
The distraction technique has and is working very well. Gotta watch the bouncing ball and the cups as they move or the pea won't be there...
What is and should be?
Any really good lawyers who might be interested in being targeted, could join forces with the people here and readers, to form an action group... Donate to the cause of freedom, an all that...
Text books of our children have been turned into propaganda tools, certain 'history' has been changed to protect the agenda... Many informational sites are attacked so as to limit the availability of knowledge.
This goes on and on...
911, weapons of mass destruction, historical ties of political nature in the formation and history of Isreal and its people, historical news reports oposing what is being stated as valid...
There ya go man...face miles of piles of their intrigue with smiles...for it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave...and keep on thinking free...(moody blues)
Suggestions on the idea to organize?

As Natelson suggested, Madison's proposal to add provisions in the BofR to guarantee against state intrusion upon rights was rejected.

However, I do not take this as an "Aha! See there! There are NO protections and that was intended and is GOOD."

I take that as a foreshadowing that Madison himself knew of the problems that would be encountered by failing to include such provisions.

How was the federal government going to exercise jurisdiction on interstate conflicts with a vast hodge-podge of diversity as to what rights US citizens were going to enjoy when present in the various and several states?

Obviously, such a construct was doomed to fail. Much emphasis is put on the conflicts between the states and the federal government, and there are plenty of examples.

There are also plenty of examples of conflicts between the states. These conflicts were VERY serious ones. There was no way to preserve the Union in any meaningful sense with a vast diversity of treatment of US citizens, depending upon the state in which you were present.

These have proven to be the basis, and indeed, the mandate, calling for constructionism by the courts in such a manner as to destroy and weed-out these vestiges of diversity a little at a time.

This is the natural course of a Union of several states based on federalism. The concept of federalism must necessarily dissolve and yield to democracy.

That does not mean I like it. It has its good points and its bad points.

In summary, federalism is a concept destined to fail over time. That we "Tenthers" would seek to regress to an earlier intended degree of federalism as espoused by the founders only leads us backward - to a hodge-podge of state diversity that will once again lead us through the maze of issues we had to go through to get where we are today.

Knowing what we do now about how US history has played-out, I wonder sometimes if we are not pushing for a new series of problems.

Prof. Natelson said:

"The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to serve as a partial cure. It guaranteed equal protection and due process against state denial, and the Privileges OR Immunities Clause signaled that when congression bestowed a privilege of national citizenship (e.g., protection against discrimination), the states had to honor it.
[Of course the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the fact that while Congress' power to confer privileges of national citizenship is broad, it is still limited by the scope of Congress's enumerated powers.]"

Yes! Exactly! Michael Boldin and I went back and forth over this topic a few weeks ago. We were discussing in terms of the Incorporation Doctrine. At that time, I was suggesting that the 14th seemed to mandate incorporation of the BOR, since they were expressly listed in the Const.

Of course, I was conflating the distinction between a "privilege" and a "right" at that time because it seems everyone else does.

I wonder if the concepts remained mutually exclusive during the period when the 14th was added.

The 14th reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In the 14th, we thus have P&I of US citizens, the inability of states to deprive any US citizen of "life, liberty or property...," and "equal protection of the laws."

We've discussed P&I (at least as they were thought of back in the days of ratification). Let's assume them to be concepts that did not later change (i.e., they remain distinguishable from rights).

Now, what is "life, liberty and property?" It seems, simply, that "thou shalt not kill, kidnap or steal." This is not anti-discriminatory across the board - e.g., it is not applicable to education and neighborhood services.

Next we have "equal protection of the laws." This is PROTECTION of the laws, like a right to a jury and other forms of due process. So, I think (but could be wrong) that this "equal protection" clause was designed to make sure that "due process" was not defined differently for some US citizens than others. Of course, due process is cognizant of privileges and immunities. Nonetheless, the word "protection" was added for reason. Nobody would have added that word superfluously.

So, I must now ask (forgetting a fair amount of Con. Law I), why was the "equal" part of "separate but EQUAL" considered an important part of Constitutional analysis? The Court held that a program that offered "separate but EQUAL" amenities complied with the 14th. However, could it not have been held that the 14th never required "equal?"

This seems to be quite possible, although I hold a bit of disdain for the limited construction of the 14th in this regard.

It seems, like so many other provisions, original intent was itself so imperfect that history has had to bear it out. It has created such broad and serious issues (or left them unresolved) that to not reconstrue it now and again would render a very unworkable hodge-podge of ideas.

Prof. Natelson,

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my earlier inquiry. I agree that, given the history, it seems "rights" were certainly excluded from the P&I clause intentionally - meaning the concepts of "rights" and "privileges" are distinct. Given the evolution of construction, it is easy to see why this exclusion has confounded scholars and practitioners. It is about as flawed an approach as the idea of federalism itself. Federalism was DESIGNED to quell the abuses associated with democracy in central government, but as can be seen in its implementation, democracy will not yield to federalism.

As to the common belief that the federal government was created to be an agent of the states, I agree with you on that as well. What surprises me is that this misconception is held by even our state legislators and finds its way into preambles in our states' sovereignty resolutions. It should not be there.

The federal government is NOT an agent of the states. It was given specified powers as to certain areas, and in those areas, its control PREEMPTS (i.e. supersedes, takes the place of) state actions.

You cannot have a principal/agent relationship where the agent's authority, by design, prevails of that of the principal.

Thanks, again, Prof. Natelson. Your continued participation is very much appreciated.

Thomas Mackie: The actual political theory at the Founding was that the sovereign people created both the states and the federal government -- each entity for different purposes. The idea that the states created the federal government was a theory adopted later (in the 19th century) for other purposes. It's a stubborn theory to be sure, but it is not correct. Sorry.

The Tenth and Ninth Amendments, also adopted by the people (through the mechanism they'd set up in the Constitution although indirectly) were designed to put in writing what had previously been implied -- that the people's grant to the federal government was distinctly limited.

Since the federal government, acting as "agent" for the original thirteen colonies, and now all the states, cannot, under the Common Law of England (to which we all continue to operate until Rome takes over once again), offer any benefits or privileges to anyone, it follows that the benefits and privileges being offered must be - in order for the Supreme Ct. to rule upon and uphold same - coming from a "State".
Thus we see there are apparently, two (2) entities calling themselves by the same name (the United States of America or the federal government) and yet acting from very distinctly different basis of authority. Under the doctrine of examining ones actions from the "totality of circumstances", the Supreme Ct. determines you and I are, and have dual citizenship...one (1) with allegiance (which carries duties and responsibilities with it) to the State in which you were born (Common Law of England); and, one (1) with the "State" you appear to behave as if you are, or want to be a citizen of (the United States of America) which equally carries with it certain duties and responsibilities.
One simple rule would be to ask yourself "what am I doing and what conclusions at law can or could come from my actions". If we accept benefits and privileges issued from the State of Wisconsin, pay Wisconsin taxes, conduct and promote our business and livelihoods upon the soil of the sovereign State of Wisconsin, vote, etc. in local Wisconsin elections, the courts could and do conclude we are acting as if we are or wish to be citizens of THAT State, regardless of where we were born.
Similarly, to extend that thought in fast forward, if we send and receive mail with the name of our State, abbreviated as Okla., we are identifying a geographic area organized and settled as a sovereign State which later agreed to join several other states in union. On the other hand, if we send and receive mail by abbreviating the name of our State as OK. , we are identifying a completely different, separate State which is under completely different jurisdiction. Insidious as it may seem or sound, this is precisely what they have accomplished and foisted upon the unknowing.
The Tenth Amendment was written and added as an Amendment to the Constitution to regulate and control the actions of whom? The federal government. The entity created by the Colonies. The courts have recognized and identified the fact that the federal government is nothing more than a service corporation created - originally - by the thirteen (13) colonies to conduct certain duties and responsibilities the gentlemen at the Constitutional Convention determined were either too far reaching and difficult for any one State to administer; or too critically necessary for the safety and tranquility of everyone to allow one (1) state to control; or, simply needed to be controlled by a central authority to avoid those jealously to become a larger problem than they need to become.
However, the Tenth Amendment does not establish ANY control over the other entity operating in Washington D.C. Think about it. Act upon it. Take off the pledge pin designating you as a member of the Unknowing Fraternity. Or, as Stan Freberg once said, “wake up Bob Cratchit, it’s later than you think!”

Since the federal government, acting as "agent" for the original thirteen colonies, and now all the states, cannot, under the Common Law of England (to which we all continue to operate until Rome takes over once again), offer any benefits or privileges to anyone, it follows that the benefits and privileges being offered must be - in order for the Supreme Ct. to rule upon and uphold same - coming from a "State".
Thus we see there are apparently, two (2) entities calling themselves by the same name (the United States of America or the federal government) and yet acting from very distinctly different basis of authority. Under the doctrine of examining ones actions from the "totality of circumstances", the Supreme Ct. determines you and I are, and have dual citizenship...one (1) with allegiance (which carries duties and responsibilities with it) to the State in which you were born (Common Law of England); and, one (1) with the "State" you appear to behave as if you are, or want to be a citizen of (the United States of America) which equally carries with it certain duties and responsibilities.
One simple rule would be to ask yourself "what am I doing and what conclusions at law can or could come from my actions". If we accept benefits and privileges issued from the State of Wisconsin, pay Wisconsin taxes, conduct and promote our business and livelihoods upon the soil of the sovereign State of Wisconsin, vote, etc. in local Wisconsin elections, the courts could and do conclude we are acting as if we are or wish to be citizens of THAT State, regardless of where we were born.
Similarly, to extend that thought in fast forward, if we send and receive mail with the name of our State, abbreviated as Okla., we are identifying a geographic area organized and settled as a sovereign State which later agreed to join several other states in union. On the other hand, if we send and receive mail by abbreviating the name of our State as OK. , we are identifying a completely different, separate State which is under completely different jurisdiction. Insidious as it may seem or sound, this is precisely what they have accomplished and foisted upon the unknowing.
The Tenth Amendment was written and added as an Amendment to the Constitution to regulate and control the actions of whom? The federal government. The entity created by the Colonies. The courts have recognized and identified the fact that the federal government is nothing more than a service corporation created - originally - by the thirteen (13) colonies to conduct certain duties and responsibilities the gentlemen at the Constitutional Convention determined were either too far reaching and difficult for any one State to administer; or too critically necessary for the safety and tranquility of everyone to allow one (1) state to control; or, simply needed to be controlled by a central authority to avoid those jealously to become a larger problem than they need to become.
However, the Tenth Amendment does not establish ANY control over the other entity operating in Washington D.C. Think about it. Act upon it. Take off the pledge pin designating you as a member of the Unknowing Fraternity. Or, as Stan Freberg once said, “wake up Bob Cratchit, it’s later than you think!”

There are three large groups out in gaga land-puter places-virtual...
Tenth Amendment Center, Constitution Party, and The National Tea Party- 912.
I would suggest all of them and all of their readers unite...
The formation of a real challenge by the people has yet to be successful...
I read where the tea party was lookin to Sarah Palin for possible leadership...
So, I volunteered.
If accepted, I will need a lot of assistance!
*If the ideal of a constitutional + bill of rights + common law sounds good to you, then I will once again offer my services to my country.
I believe it is past time to clean out our government.
Needs ta wash our flag...gots politics on it.
Who within this group would be ready to stand up to assisting...?
I posted to all of you concerning reality.
This is as real as it gets!
If a real, honest, for the people party emerges, there is no office that couldn't be filled by one of us...
In order to change things, a new beginning, with new people, has to start somewhere.
So who in here might be interested in attempting to start a new approach to the problems that are being ignored?
Talk is one thing, action another...
I can offer my platform- see *
I think we have a better than average chance here.

Mr. Boldin, if my contention is correct, most people in America do not understand the definitions of most of the words used in the Constitution; and, therefore, could not possibly understand the intention or purpose of its structure. My reference, in the past, to Patton v. U.S. is for exactly that purpose. The Thirteen Colonies (enumerated by King George at the Treaty of 1783 when he relinquished his sovereign authority to each of those colonies - separately) had each become or were in the process of becoming a "State" - as defined under the Common Law of England. It is historically correct and cannot be changed. The "States", as they were united, determined there were several duties and responsibilities best delegated to a third party for execution of those duties and responsibilities. These States then created the corporation now called the federal government (and other names depending on the pitch and fever of the gatherings). Notwithstanding all of the above, under the Common Law of England a "State" is the highest form of a sovereign political body. A State is a defined (metes and bounds) geographic boundary. States cannot create a higher sovereign political form. They are atop that ladder. A State cannot create a "SuperState". People form, create, organize States for their common benefit and protection.

What we now have is a State created corporation - the federal government - originally organized to act as an agent for the States, offering a variety of benefits and privileges to State citizens, who, upon acceptance of those benefits and privileges, are determined - by the totality of circumstances - by the judicial branch of that corporation - to be "dual" citizens. That is, we have "their" judges giving them substance where there is none. For easy reference read Hylton v. Ware, or Shelton v. Tiffin.

Oops - I mean "published by the Wisconsin Historical Society" (edited at the University of Wisconsin!)

On "Timoleon" (whose real name we do not know):

To my knowledge, the anti-federalist Timoleon "spoof court opinion" is not on the web in its entirety. I provide an excerpt in one of my articles, see http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson/articles/gwc.pdf (page 33). The full item is found in vol. 13, Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, p.534, published by the University of Wisconsin.

First: Thanks to everyone for their kind and thoughtful comments.

Jeff Matthews: My answer in this forum will necessarily be limited.

My article was about what the Founders wanted the P&I Clause to accomplish -- its purpose. Of course, they did not want states to deny air to to out of staters. But each clause in the Constitution was targeted at specific issues, and not designed to do cure all problems. (E.g., the Founders wanted a tighter union, but they did not give Congress plenary power over everything; the clauses creating congressional powers were targeted at specific issues instead.)

The P&I Clause was targeted at discrimination in privileges rather than in natural rights. Of course, the boundary between privileges and natural rights was not always crystal clear -- I mention freedom of the press as an example of the ambiguity. But many things were understood to be one or the other -- e.g., land ownership and court procedures were privileges while breathing air and free speech were natural rights. And the P&I Clause was targeted at discrimination in privileges, not in natural rights.

A good reason for this is that during the Confederation period the states regularly discriminated against out-of-staters in the conferral of privileges (like jury trial) but not (notoriously anyay) in the protection of natural rights. In fact, the Founders generally did not think the states were a major threat to natural rights -- that's why the First Congress rejected Madison's proposal to add an amendment to the Bill of Rights protecting some of them from state action. The fact that most states had bills of rights -- and the availability of a congressional remedy -- seemed to make a constitutional clause protecting natural rights against state oppression less necessary.

This view changed in the ensuing decades, as people learned that states, too, could oppress the natural rights of the people. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to serve as a partial cure. It guaranteed equal protection and due process against state denial, and the Privileges OR Immunities Clause signaled that when congression bestowed a privilege of national citizenship (e.g., protection against discrimination), the states had to honor it.
[Of course the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the fact that while Congress' power to confer privileges of national citizenship is broad, it is still limited by the scope of Congress's enumerated powers.]

There is a 'differential' all are ignoring.
Accordingly, no accademic argument can address 'realities' as the basis is 'accademic' in the discussions basis.
Therefore, as the will of the people, voice of the people, are ignored, so are any and all discussion.
From an overall level playing field, defined through and by law, our federal government is primarily out of control. This is evidenced by the actions taken to further the power structure and controls by force, over the people, etc.
The ideal here is to 'legislate' or 'precedent' away the rights and constitutional authority.
This comes in many forms and is predominant from all areas of government as a whole.
Due to a paid for system (corporate,lobbying, etc.), I offer that because of the preparations, made and in progress, that the time line for legislative relief has passed. Law suits might be a quick enough addressment, maybe.
True control will only be re-established through the several states taking control of the finances and establishing sovereignty through collectively acting as a singular authoritative entity.
I had hoped that a revolutionary process would not be needed, but as these things all continue to unfold, I am now, not so sure.
In order to subjugate powers, very definitive action will be required by a collective of the people and a consortum/federation of official states agents, governors, etc.
Until that happens, no amount of 'talk' on any level will have any real time impact.
I offer that the present structure should be attempted to be maintained. Largess adjustments are in order and addressed in such a manner as to present problems and those of the future, become constitutionally subjective.
I am presently attempting to set up just exactly that because of the limitations listed above.
There is a lot of work needing to be done, and yet I see very little difference between 1775 and now...(specifics would take too much space to be listed here) And yes, I can offer these, but first visit the web site above.

Great job Michael! Enjoyed the cast. The answer to a limited federal government lies with the next generation of governers and an educated public on the constitution. We don't teach it the way it should be taught. It should be a requirement from middle school through high school.

Das, the question I posed was based on the argument in Natelson's article on his website regarding the meaning of "privileges and immunities" as used in the Constitution. He distinguishes P&I from rights, and argues that under the Const., states were required to extend P&I to everyone in the Union, but they were not required to extend rights.

You can see the link to his article on his website if you are inclined to read and follow it.

So is this podcast in anyway similar to another podcast, Founding Truth ( http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Founding-Truth ) that talks about current news in relation to the Constitution.

@Jeff Matthews;

Jeff, I don't follow your logic - maybe I misread it but how did you incorrectly jump from a Right, being "Those things which government itself may not abridge" and "right is something with which the government may not interfere" TO "In line with this argument is that the P&I clause does NOT pertain to rights. Effectively, a state was required to extend privileges to out-of-staters, but it was NOT required to recognize rights of out-of-staters." ???

Government MAY NOT INTERFERE with our Rights, they do not need to EXTEND it to any human, a citizen or not.

You seemingly make the assertion of a Citizen as nothing more than a Subject and condemn them to a subordinate of the government. In most other government structures, including the one we are rapidly heading towards today, that could be true. However, nothing could be further from the truth of our Democratically Elected Republic. Skip back to the days of the Founders, not just the past 150 years of twisting, usurping and bastardization of the Constitution, the political process has left us with.

You are an attorney, I am not so I hate to question your logic, but I cannot for a moment see how you have taken the path you have based on the Constitution and Natural Law.

As an example of the Lawyered policies we must abide; I love how a Liberal policy maker can take both sides of the same issue for their benefit. Your example of Fishing Licenses, and all game licenses, is illustrious with two-faced hypocrites imposing its thirst for power and money on it's citizens. This sits at the core of how government has grown and has used its citizens rather than protect them.

Property Rights are well known - hence, they are even named Rights, compelling Ownership. But somehow, a local or State government found it in their best interest to charge property owners fees to use the natural resources (animals, minerals) so that they could police those Rights of ownership - effectively transferring ownership of those Natural Resources to the State. And at the same time, they also concluded that the Ownership of the land made it the owners responsibility to pay to society Property Tax for public good and mutual benefit.

One confers State ownership, the other demands Personal Ownership -- Both Interfere with our Rights to Life, Liberty and Property.

In closing, I would like to hear more from you on where this disconnect has come from. I assume it is through the usurpation of Law, but maybe you have read something of the Federalist or the Constitution that has made you believe as such. I have not.

Regards and happy discussions,

Das

I agree a right to any service such a health-care or otherwise is a right to slavery.

As a political tool it might be uses-full to enumerate for publication and general spam, the various ways the Federal Government has hurt our lives, in it's interference rather then helped.

If people are to be by in large going to be ignorant then a general dislike of the Federal government would generally serve the interest of decentralization which would in-turn serve the interest of restoration of the free market, by nature of the greater significant of inter-state competition.

I agree, State election are the most critical from this point out. The Federal Elections are not going to help us, congress and the men elected to serve there have become too drunk with their own power to ever serous give it up. We need to take control of the State legislators and governors, and bring them into the fight on our behalf! That is our only real hope.

As far as Federal politics go, we should be focused on getting officials that will block and prevent the Federal Government from interfering with the activity's of our States. The States must be calling the shots and taking the lead roll here, because only they will be naturally self-inclined to do so in a way that is remotely beneficial to our cause over the long run.

While our federal political leaders and representatives can only be minimally trusted in that regard, that's the best we the people can do, at this late hour. For they have proven that they cannot be trusted to reduce the scope of their own power back to the Constitutional bounds.

Natelson's comment about TAC leads me to believe he regulalry visits here. Hopefully, he can clarify his argument in his article on the meaning of Privileges and Immunities.

I read the whole article. His manner of distinguishing privileges from rights is good. In fact, I am an attorney, and I was able to follow the distinction quite well. For example, attorney work-product is information that is privileged from discovery. So, I get the distinction.

Here's where the reasoning seems to break down - and I don't mean Natelson's reasoning; instead, I mean the ability to work with these 2 concepts as if they really are so particularly distinct.

It is pointed out that privileges are not based on "natural law," but are instead, granted by the government as "exceptions" to the common law. So far, so good.

It is also said that rights are thought to be founded in "natural law." Those things which government itself may not abridge. Therefore, a privilege is a special benefit which government can grant (but need not), and a right is something with which the government may not interfere. Still, so far, so good.

Then, it is argued that the P&I clause expressly pertains only to privileges, but not rights. So, a state government must extend the same privileges to out-of-staters as it does to its own citizens. Example, fishing licenses.

In line with this argument is that the P&I clause does NOT pertain to rights. Effectively, a state was required to extend privileges to out-of-staters, but it was NOT required to recognize rights of out-of-staters.

It is suggested, for example, that land ownership is, historically, a privilege - a deviation, or exception to the common law that all lands belonged to the Crown. It is further suggested that bearing arms is a right. In the article, it is suggested, by way of example, that Southern States might have to grant fishing licenses to Black visitors from other states, but would not be required to let that same person carry firearms.

Using those examples, I still am able to follow.

But when you start getting into more basic rights, which are supposedly of natural law, the concepts start to fall apart.

What about "life?" What does "life" really mean? While many different definitions can be attempted, I bet all of us can agree that, for us humans, "life" definitely includes breathing air.

Therefore, under the P&I clause, may a state refuse to allow a visitor to breathe air?

I know Natelson would not attempt to argue it could, so I am not trying to give short shrift to his article. However, there seems to be, IMO, an unsettling end to the logic when we take the distinction between a privilege and a right and try to make these two concepts mutually exclusive.

In anticipation of a reply, I can see Natelson perhaps arguing that (if I remember his article correctly) since traveling is not a privilege (but was to be left to Congress), if the state required due process as a privilege to prosecution, then, it could not be denied to a visitor who was being detained. Thus, due process, as a privilege, preempted the right to shut off the supply of air to the detained. Of course, that would only work in the context of police action and due process.

But then, again, what of due process? Is this a right or privilege?

In any event, it is obvious from my writing here that this is a topic that does not seem to lead to the simplistic disitinction between rights and privileges as the article hopes to portray. Much of the article (probably 95%) discusses privileges at great length. But when we start trying to discuss at great length what exactly are our rights under "natural law," it begins to strain the argument that the Constitution was not constructed to require states to recognize for its visitors the same rights it recognizes for its own citizens.

I'd love to hear from Natelson on this question. A good lesson on those things considered "rights" would greatly augment the attempt to build a list of privileges. Then, we could look at those rights and see if it really makes sense that a state could be expected to remain free to deny them to visitors.

Thanks, Michael. I can't find Timoleon's satirical opinion.

Jeff:

Not sure who the symphony is, but it's the Blue Danube Waltz.

As far as the anti-federalist writer, the name is "Timoleon." I've actually done significantly more reading of anti-federalists than I have of federalist writings. This one, I'd never heard of. Great little tidbit of info, as usual!

Now, that I have listened to the whole interview, I want to say that we are lucky to have people like Natelson take time out and do these kinds of things for us.

Thanks, Natelson and TAC!

BTW: What was the name of the person who wrote a satirical court opinion? He was mentioned at about 37:30, but the stream will not let me jump back to that spot.

The one thing I really want to know is who is the artist for the opening music.

Serious. Who is it?