Comments on: There’s Much More than just the Federalist Papers

By: william joseph

william joseph — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:49:21 +0000

@indio007 @LisaFisk Then who gave Lincoln the power to make green backs or was it Rothschilds printing it all along?

By: Act or be Acted Upon

Act or be Acted Upon — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:11:08 +0000

I continue to be surprised by Mr. Natelson’s adherence to the philosophy that the U.S. Constitution was a grant from the people to the federal government rather than a compact amongst 13 sovereign states banding together to do a few specific things for their common good. I can find nothing in the quotes above that could not also be construed to support this doctrine.

I would suggest that those who are serious about further pursuing this most important topic would profit by reading Abel Upshur’s “A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government”. http://www.constitution.org/ups/upshur.htm

It was written back in the 1840s by a highly respected judge, who later became secretary of the Navy and then Secretary of State under President Tyler.

It is one of the most thorough, well reasoned and logical explanations of the true nature of our federal government, with ample footnotes and historical facts, that I have ever read.

Every serious tenther should read this and recommend it to their friends. It provides a very solid framework and foundation upon which to build a sound case for the necessity and appropriateness of nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and regulations.

I’d like to see the TAC do a lot more promotion of Judge Upshur’s works if they really want to promote the soundness of the nullification doctrine.

By: indio007

indio007 — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 01:41:34 +0000

@LisaFisk @indio007 That was just my point. Everyone thinks the US issues the currency. The Fed does and they are private. They have to let a private party issue paper money if they want paper money to circulate.

The thing that gets me is FRN’s maybe legal tender but there is no law that makes them the ONLY legal tender. Recognition of something is not the same as exclusivity.

By: LisaFisk

LisaFisk — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:55:10 +0000

@indio007 That would be all well and good if the Federal Reserve were either Federal or a Reserve, which it is neither. It is an independent institution,and like any institution, once you let the inmates run it, everything goes balls up.

By: theCL Report: The Rot Runs Deep

theCL Report: The Rot Runs Deep — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:16:09 +0000

[...] There's Much More than just the Federalist Papers [...]

By: indio007

indio007 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:26:45 +0000

How bout you rely on the Minutes of the Constitutional Convention itself….
Here’s what they did regarding paper money…. The prohibited the US from printing. That’s why the FED does it . The US simply RECOGNIZES Fed money as currency

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out “and emit bills on the credit of the U. States”-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.
Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.
Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.
Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.
Col. MASON 20 had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.
Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.
Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens
Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.
Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which21might arise.
Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.
Mr. BUTLER. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.
Mr. MASON was still averse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head.
Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.
Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words “(and emit bills”)
On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay.23 N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. 22
The clause for borrowing money,25 agreed to nem. con.

By: West Texan

West Texan — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:03:07 +0000

The U.S. Constitution’s own Bill of Rights goes to the very heart of the ratification debates as summarized by The Federal Farmer in 1787 where he wrote “There are certain unalienable and fundamental rights, which in forming the social compact , ought to be explicitly ascertained and fixed-a free and enlightened people … will not resign all their rights to those who govern, and they will fix limits to their legislators and rulers …”, and “These rights should be made the basis of every constitution …”. Talk about precedent. Like Moses who delivered God’s Ten Commandments, Madison gave us the first ten amendments. IMHO, the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land which all constitutional decisions must be based.

By: RockyVnvmc

RockyVnvmc — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:17:31 +0000

“13th Article of our Confederation. The will of a majority of the people hath always been considered by the people of this country as sufficient to determine and bind the minority”; I shall respond with a ‘quote’ from Benjamin Franklin; ‘ Democracy is two wolves and a sheep sitting down to discuss what to have for dinner’, ‘Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.’

By: There’s Much More than just the Federalist Papers

There’s Much More than just the Federalist Papers — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:41:36 +0000

[...] Natelsontenthamendmentcenter.com August 29, [...]

By: WilliamSchooler

WilliamSchooler — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:21:30 +0000

I would have to ask what is the definition of these 9 states? These 9 defined land masses?
The 9 defined Republics?
These 9 representations of states?
These 9 states of condition?

These 9 states would contain the majority of people, are these the public in a republic of this state? Which majority were they referring to?

I have always been very interested in the Federal principals of Government, but the only real principals I found live in our Declaration of Independence and should it be used as a choice making tool the argument would end because it can be shown by results the very thing it supports. Federalist were funny people to me all working to be scholars rather than supporting the basics of ourselves. Attempting to impress upon rather than showing an enormous difference between authority and the natural act of life itself which is to be allowed and to grow. I have read some of these papers with amazement why so many really valued these folks.

Of course I look at the lack of my constitution now and see the accounts of all this thinking because I must be right, I thought of it myself and that makes it right, right?