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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Declaration of Independence 1776
Being written 11 years before the Constitution was adopted, the intent of the founders is clearly that self government was always the objective. This document represents a major change in the law form of the country. Prior to this the English had a combination of Anglo-Saxon common law and Norman civil law. In Norman (Roman) civil law the king holds title to everything and everybody. The struggle in England has always been the struggle between the Rule of Law and the rule of kings. Since then ample time has elapsed to prove without doubt that our government of a constitutionally limited republic was the best ever devised and implemented. But what is a constitutional republic? There is of course much newspeak in government schools and media leading us away from the truth, but as always the truth is simple and easy to understand.
First, the most common deception is that America is a democracy. A democracy is a form of government run totally by the whims of the people, direct elections, laws by popular vote. This obviously disastrous form of government was the type created in America by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles formed the Union of the several States, and was the ancestral document of the Constitution. Congress had no power to maintain the federal government. There was no executive or judiciary. There was no power to force the raising of an army or collect taxes. In the states many did not have an executive branch or at best a figurehead one. The legislature ruled absolutely. Any person could be elected. Court decisions were overturned by new laws. Laws were passed forcing creditors to accept goods in payment for debts. There was no Rule of Law, or very little. Legislators who are merely politicians and not statesmen, love this system. Vote for me and I will pass any law you want regardless of the expense to the nation. Whereas a true statesman will pass any law for the good of the nation regardless of the expense to his career. Madison stated that they modeled the first government after the Greek states as that is all they had to go on, everything else was a monarchy or worse. With all of the legislators being elected in a democracy guess how they will get votes, by promising whatever the people wanted. This was the reason the Constitution mandated the Senate be appointed by the House members. The Senators had no campaign money to raise or promises to keep. The were to be the check on the whims of the people to insure the Rule of Law was not violated. In 1913 along with the Federal Reserve Act, the 17th amendment was 'passed' requiring Senators to be elected. This move was obviously needed to remove the statesmen from Congress so that the banksters could further their foul deeds. Quite obviously a 'democratic' government is one which can be easily controlled by a few people despite its pretenses of equality. And history shows that a democracy is suited to a town or city at best. If you really wish to live in a 'democracy' move to Washington DC, there the legislature rules and the gun laws are the most draconian and of course the crime rate is the worst in country.
Now a republic is a country governed by rules. Here too, the ultimate power resides in the people through representatives, but government has rules to follow. England does not have a written constitution as such, but nevertheless there are rules and laws to which government must adhere. Magna Carta came about because the kings strayed from their lawful duties and rights. Violation of the law by king George III, was the legitimate reason for America to declare independence from England. Many countries such as the old USSR and the Peoples Republic of China are of course anything but republics. This form of labeling is merely more newspeak, those countries are of course just plain old fashioned dictatorships., with their centralized power base.
A constitutional republic is a government controlled indirectly by the people through representatives and limited by a written constitution as to its powers and duties. Our government has been empowered to do only eighteen things. That is correct. Only eighteen. Yet how many 'thousands' of things does government do today to intrude upon your rights? All in the pretense of being able to 'help' you better of course. If you obtain a copy of the current 'The United States Government Manual' printed by the the Government Printing Office (who said government could do that?) you will find 857 pages of hundreds of agencies and the many corporations that government admits to. All in the name of helping us in these 'complex' times of course. The Rule of Law is what keeps a constitutional republic a republic, instead of a monarchy.
The 10th amendment very clearly says :
The powers not delegated to the to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
On the peoples side of the Constitution the 9th amendment very clearly says :
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Notice in the foregoing how the common-law is protected, first by limiting government, then preserving the existing unalienable and common law rights of the people. Now, if you do not know the common law how do you know what your rights are?
Now, how many 'federal crimes' can you think of? Too many to list right? Let's let some truth in on the matter and see what Thomas Jefferson had to say about this :
"...Resolved, that the Constitution of the United States having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever..." The Kentucky Resolutions, November 16, 1798That means very simply that anyone in a federal prison not convicted of one or more of the above four crimes is a political prisoner. Period. And the US has a larger prison population than other countries that you might think should have large prison systems. History has shown us that when prison ranks swell the current government is fearing the population in proportion to the jailing rate. Land of the free home of the brave.
We must now briefly discuss what actually constituted liberty in the founders minds. The clues are given to us by Noah Webster in his first American Dictionary of the English language, completed in 1828.
Natural Liberty : Consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
Civil Liberty : Is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged as restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of laws are essential to civil liberty.
Political Liberty : Designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation.
Notice in the foregoing definitions of liberty the very essence of the common law is exhibited, from the individual to the national level. By genuinely desiring to preserve the rights of their fellow countrymen, the founders created the only practical form of government which would satisfy those ends. A government of the people, by the people and for the people.
To preserve this government the founders enumerated no clause or power which specified any set of circumstances or enactments by which the Constitution could be suspended or nullified. The courts have long ago settled this, to wit : "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism; but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence." Milligan 18 L. Ed. 281. This delusion of the ability to overthrow our Constitution by whim is of course very popular at the moment, as well as with the totally (legally) Fictional 'War and Emergency Powers Act' of 1933.
To further protect our rights for all times John Marshall, hero of the War for Independence, having fought with valor at Iron Hill and Brandywine Creek and wintered with Washington at Valley Forge became the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Standing alone against Jefferson and the rising crowd of democrats seeking to unravel the Republic in 1803, Marshall arrived at a decision in Marbury v. Madison that made it emphatically clear that the Supreme Court could annul an act of Congress. No middle ground existed; the Constitution was either "a superior paramount law", which could not be tampered with by legislation, or "it is based on a level with ordinary legislative acts" and can be altered at the will of Congress. If the Constitution is not the highest law of the land, then "written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power that is illimitable." He further declared that "the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void." This decision and others made by Marshall cemented into law the principles of our Constitutional Republic for all time.
The doctrine of repugnancy has evolved, quite naturally, and now has stood the test of time and many, many cases to the point where unconstitutionality dates from the time of enactment and not from the date of the decision so branding said law. This means that in actuality such an act or law is inoperative as if it had never been passed. It can impose no duties, confer no rights, create no offices, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. In some cases people damaged under unconstitutional laws have been able to sue and recover damages for said usurpations. The same extends to treaties as power is given to make treaties "under the Constitution", not by the dictates or whims of 'policy'.
These two principles of the Constitution, its absolute placement as the supreme law of the land in all situations and the fact that no other laws or treaties can exist outside of its boundaries gives us today the same recourse the colonists had against King George. Usurpers are the lawbreakers, not the oppressed desiring relief, justice or escape from tyranny. That is the greatness of the Constitution, that, despite its elegant simplicity, or perhaps because of it, its power to point out transgression is second only to the Bible. And just like the Bible, you can go into a large bookstore and find many interpretations of the Constitution. Isn't that amazing? God's Word being 'translated' into hundreds of variations in this country, despite the ability of modern translators, and the Constitution protecting God given rights being interpreted a dozen or more different ways despite its clarity and simplicity. If you know the law then the Constitution is simple, if you do not know the law then you are stuck trying to guess what the 'meaning of is is', with every word, and then you too can come up with a wrong conclusion.
Jefferson points out the method to use to interpret the Constitution :
"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801For us today that means reading the 'Federalist Papers' by Hamilton, Madison and Jay as proponents of the Constituion. And the 'Commentaries on the Constitution' by Justice Joseph Story a sitting Supreme Court Judge for 34 years, appointed by President Madison in 1811, who voted to free the prisoners on the Amistad. These writings explain exactly how the Constitution was interpreted and enforced in it's early days. NOT! by reading it sentence by sentence in isolation to discover what the 'meaning of is is' in our 'modern, enlightened times'.
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now." S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).
Now after reading and understanding something's about the law and the Constitution you now can see what your rights antecedent to government are and their source and how the Constitution preserves that which has always existed.
Next on the 'What is the 1787 Constitution?' page find out just what was intended.
Home