In 1798 Thomas Jefferson secretly drafted another declaration few know about...
Most Americans know that Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of “The Declaration of Independence”, the most important of all our founding documents.
Yet few of them have even heard of another document that I would say might be the second most important declaration he ever wrote: The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. He drafted them secretly while he was serving as vice president. It was written in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts which were passed under the Adams administration during an undeclared war with France.
The acts authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States, and criminalized any speech which might defame Congress, the President, or bring either of them into contempt or disrepute. You could compare it to the Patriot Act, but really it was much worse. Either way, The Alien and Sedition Acts were probably Thomas Jefferson’s worst nightmare.
Some people are surprised to learn that in response to these acts, Jefferson did not hold up the First Amendment in protest. Rather he invoked the Tenth Amendment, which states that:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Essentially, he argued that by passing and enforcing the Alien and Sedition Acts, the federal government had over stepped its bounds and was exercising powers which belonged to the states.
In other words, the Alien and Sedition Acts were acts of usurpation.
James Madison corresponded with Jefferson about these issues, (they suspected that their mail was being secretly opened and read by the way). As a result of their correspondence, James Madison penned another series of resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed by the Virginia legislature in 1798 and 1799.
As important as these resolutions were in objecting to the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts, their lasting importance was due to the the fact that they were strong statements in defense of federalism, the sovereignty of the people of the several states, and the authority of state governments to check or resist the tyrannical proclivities of the federal government.
Jefferson began the Kentucky Resolutions by explaining the exact nature of the relationship between the new federal, or general government and the states that predated it:
“Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
These resolutions, authored by Jefferson and Madison, and passed by the Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures, came to be known as the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, or Resolves, of 1798. The ideas they expressed were later referred to as “The Principles of ’98″.
Over time, “The Principles of ’98″ would be invoked by many states, for a variety of issues. States invoked them to oppose everything from unconstitutional embargoes in 1807-1809, to the misuse of their militias during The War of 1812, the Second Bank of the United States in 1825, and the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1850.
Even today, The Principles of ’98 have been rediscovered and are being used by both Republicans and Democrats to address unconstitutional federal laws such as federal firearms regulations, Cap and Trade, REAL ID, Obamacare and Congressional “commerce clause” abuse in general.
The Principles of ’98, as expressed in Thomas Jefferson’s other declaration, The Kentucky Resolutions, are non-partisan in nature and are just as relevant today as they were in 1798. All we have to do is rediscover and reassert them! Start talking to your state legislators about the Principles of ’98 today!
ACTION ITEMS
CLICK HERE – for Model Nullification legislation that can be introduced in your state
CLICK HERE – for the TAC’s Nullification organizer’s toolkit. Use it for the issue listed, or for anything you want to act on
CLICK HERE – to get the book, Our Last Hope, the “owner’s manual” for the modern nullification movement.
CLICK HERE – To read more about how the Principles of ’98 were used by states throughout American history.
This article was originally featured on the website of United We Stand For Americans.
GOOD NEWS
GOOD NEWS
Most timely.
I would only add a caveat to revisit the preamble to the Constitution’s call to provide for the “common defence.” Patriot acts and alienation and sedition acts seem to fall within that sphere. To protect ourselves from fifth column type activities requires a national effort, not one that varies from state to state. How is a state to deport someone? To another state? To another country?
In the fifties, we actually had sabotage operations in America coordinated by Communist Party “cells.” I recall the TV series “I Lead Three Lives” with Richard Carlson portraying counterspy Herb Philbrick breaking up efforts to bomb various utilities and soft points across the U.S. It wasn’t all dreamed up – there really was a hot side to the Cold War.
But, Here’s to State Rights!
Read the lyrics of Bonnie Blue Flag, and enjoy its lovely tune. The “single star” rides proudly under my grille.
Ken
This is a very common misunderstanding. The preamble is NOT a grant of power in any way. It is a declarative statement and nothing more. It explains WHY the constitution was written, and the grants and limits of power following it in the full text of the constitution is how those goals are to be achieved.
How is the common defense provided for? By giving only congress the power to declare war, to ensure that states don’t coin their own money, to establish post roads (interstate highways), and the like.
The patriot act, sedition act, and most of what the government does today does NOT fit within their limits.
On top of it….unless you like the idea of the preamble’s general welfare statement being defined as providing healt care, controlling wages, restricting gun ownership, bailing out banks, and the rest of the excuses commonly given….you might want to rethink that argument.
The Patriot Act is patently unconstitutional, as it grossly expands the powers of the president and federal government, and severely compromises fundamental constitutional rights. It is an outrage, comparable the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 18th century. It should be anathema to any decent American citizen.
“… to establish and uniform Rule of Naturalization” in the enumerated power section of the Constitution, Which I think we all understand has to do with “Immigration” and our “OLD” immigration laws which were very good.
In those “laws” are sections on “deportation” and people having passports stamped with “Persona Non Grata”, if aliens were here and “causing trouble” we caused them TROUBLE. If you were a citizen and committed Treason against this Beloved Country, we know what Washington did to Benedict Arnold.
Suggestion about the Alien & Seditions Acts – These were formative years in our Beloved Country. When the Federal Level had to deal with a situation of Aliens in the New Country, I don’t think the “formulation of the Immigration laws” had taken place. I think much of the discussions in the “resolves” came as foundations for the “OLD Immigration Laws” which was a Federal level duty under the “enumeration of powers” Right????
Remember, too, the love these Founders had for what God had wrought and they loved their people. They were always “walking circumspectly” to guard that jewel called “LIBERTY”.
Much is to be learned by John Adams statement in 1798, ( by the way, the year of the ’98 Resolves): “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious (Christian religion Supreme Court ruling 1892) people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Arresting Americans for criticizing the policies of the federal government are somehow related to rules for naturalization? Absurd.
This coming from a person who has commented here on the goodness of national prohibition – it does not surprise me.
This is where the 10th amendment comes into play nicely. If you would like a theocracy, to criminalize dissent, and the like – keep it in your own area. I prefer Jefferson and Madison and their approach – resist such tyranny from the federal government!
To all… Here is a question, that I feel must be addressed today before we go much further with our states rights agenda. Back in the days of our founding the Federal Gov't did not tax the individual. The revenues raised where for the the States,and from Tariffs. So our Legistlatures were our stop gap. Today, even if we decide to use nullification or interposition as soveriegn states, the individuals of that state could , and probalbly would still be forced to pay for something, through federal taxation, that they want no part of, ie…. Obamacare, cap and trade, etc…
Also, don't forget that our State Legistlatures used to elect out Senators!!! But tha is for another discussion, but relavent to State Sovereignty issues.
Zac
The States could opt out it's citizens from the Income Tax and protect it's citizins from the Feds with the Sherrifs depatment or County or State Militia. Thats our right also.
Sorry Rick…. The Income Tax is in the Constitution. We would have to repeal that Amendment. I am a ardent supporter of our State and Popular Sovereignty. But the rule of law must be maintained. The 16th Amendment was lawfully passed, and we must abide by that. The only way to do away with it is with another Amendment to repeal it, such as in prohibition, which was repealed 7 years later.
As for as I understand it, and I'm not exactly sure how it would work; the states themselves could collect the federal income tax from it's citizens and withhold from sending them to the federal government, under such circumstances until the federal government abides by our constitution as written.
Nope, there is ample documentation that the 16th Amendment was not lawfully enacted. Please see a two volume set, "The Law that Never Was." What's more, a direct tax is ONLY constitutional if it is apportioned. Honest…check it out!
Maybe that's why they call it a "voluntary" tax??
Sorry Zac…..The Supreme Court judged that "The sixteenth amendment gave the federal government no new powers of taxation".
I can't remember which case it was offhand, but it's a fact.
Add to this that extensive research shows the sixteenth amendment was never legally ratified to begin with.
But if you're really interested, email me, and I'll get the info for you.
ronbrooks5509@yahoo.com
For many years, the federal (actually, national) gov't was financed by excise taxes and imposts…ONLY! I am speaking authoritatively about this.
Excellent article. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the kind and encouraging words Dr. Gutzman!
As we consider all of the pending legislative intrusions into our personal freedoms – government health care, cap and trade, card check, firearms restrictions, etc. – it makes a freedom loving American want to burn down Washington. However, as the Tea Party march on Washington already proved, the progressives will do everything possible to discredit the movement and any further effort there is futile.
Therefore, our fight is at the state level. Each state must have the courage to nullify any legislation that exceeds the limitations imposed by the tenth amendment. If the health care bill or firearm restrictions pass, states must immediately nullify the law and challenge it in court. Of greater importance is if the Supreme Court refuses to support the state's legal standing, then the citizens and government of that state must stand strong and defy the rulings of the court, fully showing that the constitution and not the federal progressive interpretation of it is the law of the land.
Some additional thoughts. Having grown up in Montana, in school we learned of the history of the Vigilantes and their fight against the corrupt legal system that existed in Montana during the early years. This movement started on 7/7/77, which was their calling card, and it restored balance and legal integrity in a troubled territory. These men defied the law that existed at the time because it was corrupt.
If the US supreme court refuses to support the standing of the states and limit the federal government, then this is when each state's citizens must draw a line in the sand and say no more. In effect the supreme court would have lost its legal authority with the states and any of their rulings that stepped over the line would also need to be nullified. It is time to force that standoff while we still have enough liberty to do so.
I agree, our current government is "broken" and has been for quite some time! State "sovereignty" is an absolute requirement if the Federal government is to be constrained to it's Constitutional limits and our Federal government and Republic are to function properly with the checks and balances as was designed by our Founders.
The "Civil War" or the "War of Northern Aggression" marks the great Federal takeover of the US and was a period in time when the Constitutions of many States were illegally forced upon them as (illegally declared) "conquered" territories. Therefore, as a precursor to a declaration of sovereignty by a State, I would suggest that State take the last "legal" constitution of that state and by proper amendment bring it into congruence with their current State Constitution but keeping those parts of the original which pertain to that State's sovereignty and right to secede from any union. Then the State will have a real (State) Constitutional validity for their claim of Sovereignty and the (State) Constitutional right to enforce that sovereignty. Some states do not need to do this as their constitutions may already have the necessary language required.
We currently live in a "democracy" which is in itself a violation of our Constitution which guarantees a "republican" form of government not a democratic form of government at the State and Federal levels. We MUST return to a "republican" form of government if our governments are to function properly. The 14th amendment must be nullified and repealed. Senators must again be chosen by sovereign State Legislatures if the "checks and balances" our Founders envisioned and set forth are to be properly realized, our Republic restored, and our Liberty secured.
The People must remain ever vigilant and never again (once we "fix" this situation) allow our governments (at any and all levels) to make us "their" "servants" (which is most certainly the current State of our Union)!
Oops! "The 14th amendment must be nullified and repealed". Should have been: "The 17th amendment must be nullified and repealed."
Actually, the original comment that "The 14th amendment must be nullified and repealed" is accurate too. The ratification process for the 14th amendment was a circus because of numerous unconstitutional procedures used by the "Black Republicans" in order to punish the Southern States for their secessions from the union. See the following article:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
Hello, is this thing on? For starters the 16th amendment was not properly ratified by all the States and there is documentation to prove it! Second point, States DO NOT have rights, States have power, the people have rights.
As I see it the States gave up their power when it was decided to incorporate into the ten square mile incorporated District of Columbia. By doing so they became nothing more than tax collectors for the general government. To stop all this madness I believe the States need to unincorporate and stop collecting taxes for the Fed which in return gives a portion of it back to the State as long as the State complies with Federal Mandates concerning interstate commerce, drivers licenses, health care, immigration and what ever else is considered within the scope or jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
Yes, the 16th amendment needs to be repealed and so does the 18th , so the State Legislature can once again appoint Senators thus protecting the power of the State to protect the RIGHTS of it's citizens ( we the people ).
Then and only then will a declaration of sovereignty be taken seriously by the powerless general government.
If anyone has any ideas on this matter please post same.
The 18thA was "Prohibition" and has already been repealed. You meant the 17thA (I just made a similar error with regard to the 17thA … now I know).
Thanks, I get so much going on in my feeble old brain that I forget what I'm trying to say.
Sounds like you're pretty much "right on!"
Aided by the mainstream media, Congress and the rest of the Federal government decided to try to ignore the 9-12 Tea Party of, arguably, 100,000 to 2 million participants. Whether it was acknowledged or not, it did have an effect on the Feds and on the People; it energized the People and caught the Feds off-guard. The ingress into DC was pretty much shut-down as of 2pm according to the policeman I spoke with at the event (he was also positively impressed by both our numbers and our "behavior").
Well, if they decided to ignore us that time maybe it's time to give them a Tea Party they cannot ignore. What if five, ten or twenty-times the number of the 9-12 Tea Party arrived while Congress was in session and totally shut down the access into or out-of DC? Jam the freeways, jam the metro, jam access in both directions with our traffic. … Shut DC and Congress down! Lock the Congress up in DC even if we can't lock them up in jail as they deserve!.
There are problems with that approach. 1) "False-flag" discrediting operations by the "establishment" (almost a certainty this time around); 2) "Road-rage" events by those "inconvenienced" by the shut-down (high probability of at least one incident); 3) Logistics difficulties of having so many people (food, water, sanitary facility support for locals as well as TPers). … But it "would" be a hard event to ignore!
If that were to happen they would probably call it an unusually high volume of people that happen to be in the same area with no explanation.
Personally, the more we think we need their approval the more power we give to them. Its like the difference between my cat and my dog. My dog depends on me while my cat acts like it does not need me. I serve the cat food while my dog begs. I think its time to ignore those who ignore us because we don't need them.
Michael, in fact if you read both the federalist and anti-federalist papers the founders not only considered he preamble to be the bedrock of our Constitution, but they all agreed that it was in fact the FIRST AND FOREMOST declaration of rights. It does far more than explain why the Constitution was written, that was done in the Declaration of Indpendence, it set the boundries for all the Articles and Amendments. The founders knew this, and we should too!
Robert – could you point me, specifically, to where the founders may have said that the preamble to the constitution was a GRANT of power. That it should be read as authorizing activity by the government?
I will charge, in advance, that you cannot find such a thing. Why? Because it does not exist.
Now – if you believe it to be the BEDROCK of our society – that might be an interesting perspective. But how are the goals of that BEDROCK to be achieved? By following the rules of the constitution.
The preamble outlined the goals of creating the new government. the words of the constitution explained how that would be done. There is no serious argument to the contrary.
I wonder what would we do without government in the sense where would our rights come from? When and if the government collapses we will become instant slaves but slaves to who? There is no authority around that can tell us what to do so I wonder who will give us our rights. I will instantly fall in line with the first non-existing government authority that does not exist.
Our rights do not reside in government. This point is absolutely fundamental. And, this was stated pretty eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.
Without the preamble, the 10th Amendment loses its standing as a "fundamental" right. You have bought into the Hegalian moral relativism that is destroying our country to believe that the bill of rights are not "fundamental" rights. We are already losing those rights because the Supreme Court Justices have forgotten that the first document of this country, the Articles of Incorperation of the United States, which we call the Declaration of Independence is in fact the origianal "Contract with America". The Preamble not only repeats this basic fact but builds the walls within which the totality of the Constitution exists. We must restore Constitutional integrity and that will restore our Tenth Amendment rights along with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 9th.
The 10th Amendment is not a "right" – in any sense. It is a restrictive amendment on the power of the federal government. It defines that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers that were delegated to it, and all else was reserved to the states and people.
The way you have described it is completely upside down. I recommend you read Professor Kurt Lash – The Original Meaning of an Omission – which will explain the history, the nature and the purpose of the 10th quite well. You can do a search for it on this site.
The choice is simple, either stand for these rights or give them up.
Using the basis of the states is only effective IF it is agreed upon by all of them and acted upon as a whole entity.
Certain 'enforcement' groups will visit each of the patriots in order to either eliminate them or imprison them.
Standing alone is just a small flash and take out in a practice sense for the military/mercenary forces, etc.
When confronted correctly by a majority, it changes everything.
"It ain't much fun huntin when the rabbit has a gun."
There is no comparison in history to what is comin…
As much as I like this site, the whole thing is way past legislation and talking, like it or not.
The fear our government has of its people has grown to the point that 'they' are in process of implementing all those nasty ideas you have been hearing about.
Having been in combat, I have a very real disturbing aversion to the very idea, let alone in our country.
At first I was hoping none of these decisions would take place. The recent extension of The Patriot Act tells me the difference, AND, the list of those voting for it shows exactly how far in the toilet the whole thing really is…
I've seen first hand exactly the communist exactment towards a people 'they' intended to conquer, any means justifies any action. I do mean anything you can think of and then some!
Imagine being on your own for a period of years. This is looking at 2 – 5 years! So forget the play nice BS and really start looking at it…'what ya gonna do when they come for you?' And yes 'they' are in readiness process to do exactly that…
Need a bullet proof Constitution, anuther tea party, an a new start on the whole.
At least this be as I sees it presently.
Most people can't see the forest because all the trees are in the way. When the Southern States walked out of the Congress in 1860, the Congress no longer had a quorum so it couldn't do ANY business. The only thing it could do was adjourn, which it did. At that time the Constitutional Republic became uninhabited. It did not cease to exist because that would take a vote in Congress to do so. It simply became uninhabited. The Corporate United States has since filled the void. Every law passed since that time is null and void as far as our Constitutional Republic is concerned. If you understand this go to http://www.guardiansofthefreerepublics.com.
Drew
The above remarks may sound nutty, but I'm afraid they are close to the truth. I do know that when most people…certainly any public officials or govenrnmental agencies…(Gov. Jesse Ventura may have been an exception!)..speak of the "United States," they mean the corporate entity, not the organic United States of America…i.e., the republic. Same with the states. There are, e.g., two "Californias." There is the "Calif. Republic," and there is the "State of California." Investigate and you will find that I speak the truth. Notice how the state flag says "Calif. Republic," but all legal documents mention the "State of California." Odd? You betcha!!
Regarding the different versions of the "United States," can anyone quote the normative U.S. Supreme Court case on this issue?
doesn't sound nutty to me in the least. I looked up synonyms for the word State about two years ago now, and the first thing that came up was COUNTRY. It was then that I realized that our states are little sovereign countries in and of themselves with power above that of the federal government… or at least SHOULD be the way the Constitution is written. There's a lot of indoctrination that people who think like we do are up against. Over 100 years worth, and while it's going to take some doing to get people to understand, in the end it will be worth it.
Two quick points:
1) The Constitution is only a framework to obtain the goals of the Declaration. Knowing this, which is the more important document?
2) Applying to the animals employed by the banksters for redress will fail.
You need to change yourselves. Eliminate interest. Stop cheating each other.