Constitution Day – September 17th

8 Comments on Constitution Day – September 17th

1. ” This is not to question the legitimacy of the Constitution however, as it WAS written by officially appointed delegates, and signed on to by the States.”

   The principle governing the defenders who formed, founded, and defended the American common law governments was equal footing among individuals. To then claim that somehow representatives from 12 states could assemble in an effort to re-establish monarchy in America, legally, is a false claim, provable as false, on the official record.

   Why is the power of falsehood so powerful in the light of the actual recorded facts?

   I have no idea, and the dupes aren’t willing to even discuss the topic.

   No other explanation is required to understand what happened in America since the equal footing, common law, founding turned into the profitable monopoly, run by corporate oligarchs, today: the people were demonstrably fooled into accepting slavery when they had liberty.

2. Thanks Elias…Yes, that “Cast Iron Man” – Calhoun – had it right, and I tipped some time ago that the Philadelphia convention went rogue – sent there to improve the Articles of Confederation, they tossed em’ and produced a new charter from a blank page. This is not to question the legitimacy of the Constitution however, as it WAS written by officially appointed delegates, and signed on to by the States. There’s no question in my mind that a more formalized commitment to a united interest was needed – The centrifugal forces in play at the time threatened a dissolution of everything the war had been fought for. That you saw no “Federal” entity as a co-signer is very much so to the point, and a realization that must be drummed into our consciousness. Lo and behold ! Now today we have our creature asserting itself as entitled, namely, the “Government Interest” and operating as – no other away to describe it – an Imperial power.

3. “He followed that up by noting that the second thing a government must do is oblige itself to govern itself.”

   It is a process, it has no power to think, or act, and it is constituted by people who do think and act. It cannot be held responsible, not be given powers, not have power taken away from it, and it cannot be held accountable. It is a process. The document documenting the process, in the case of the 1787 National Constitution is a document that documents a crime scene: a process.

   The criminals who took the power to “govern” themselves used that power to enforce their false claim that they, and only they, are above the law. That was when the law was the common law American style. We, each one of us, are on an equal footing with each other, and no one is above the American style common law, at the founding, when the original processes (government) was formed in defense against a belligerent invading army of criminals.

   Madison soon jumped off the National, consolidated, Imperial, Masters of Slaves “government” ship and formed the Democratic-Republican Party, along with Jefferson, as documented in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

   Flip-flop Madison was pro-Aristocrat government, then pro-equal footing of all the people government in his time here as one of the individuals living on earth.

   Give people absolute power and what happens to them in all cases save a very elite few? So…do not give them absolute power in the first place and it is thereby possible to avoid that enabling of would-be tyrants: common law, where all people are legally on the same footing, and no one is giving anyone absolute power.

   Along with that Gaspee Affair can be added the process that was called Shays’s Rebellion, and those events that sum up the Regulators of the Carolinas, all happening before the criminals turned the original voluntary mutual defense association (federation) into an aristocratic, empire building, Nation State of masters who master slaves.

   All of those processes involve kangaroo, debt collection, summary justice courts, whereby the court jesters claim absolute power over their subjects, and that claim is a claim that they enforce, whereby they are above the common law, and none of their subjects have access to that common law on an equal footing.

   Summary justice (unequal footing) versus trial by the country (equal footing) in each case where the slaves are stirred up enough to the point of defensive violence because they are victims of mixed war.

   They are victims of mixed war because they are no longer afforded their common law remedies, which include mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, to name a few.

   If you think the usurpation of claiming that the National government agents have absolute power over the law process is a specious argument or conspiracy theory, then please consider asking why the Judiciary Act was put in motion before amending the criminal Constitution of 1787/89 with the Bill of Rights.

4. Had I more time, I would love to get involved in this comment thread, but alas, I must blurt out a thing or two and be on my way. That said, I’d like to address this passage by Neil Wampler above —
   _________________
   Quoting Neil Wampler:
   “We do have the means, avoiding the horrors and destruction of intestine conflict by using, and living, the egalitarian, but very practical, compact between the States. The fiction of the General govt as Arbiter and overlord must be banished, erased, consigned to the dustbin.”
   ___________________

   Neil, I like that greatly. Reminds me of a quote by our 7th Vice President, John Calhoun, in his 1831 Fort Hill Address – He stated this passage eloquently:
   _________________________
   Quoting John C. Calhoun:
   “The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities. The General Government is but its creature; and though, in reality, a government, with all the rights and authority which belong to any other government, within the orbit of its powers, it is, nevertheless, a government emanating from a compact between sovereigns, and partaking, in its nature and object, of the character of a joint commission, appointed to superintend and administer the interests in which all are jointly concerned; but having, beyond its proper sphere, no more power than if it did not exist.”
   _____________________
   I’ve loved that address for years, and would that other Americans could awaken to see the beauty therein. The whole address is at my site, here –
   https://thementalmilitia.net/2017/02/08/john-c-calhoun-fort-hill-address-1831/
   When I first read that, I went straight to the Constitution and noticed that there is no signature under that document representing the Federal (General) government. The States, in their respective Sovereignty, created the monster.
   Truth be known, James Madison was not, (in my personal opinion) the hero he’s played-up to be. Known today as “The Father of the Constitution”, he totally trashed the compact which 13 Sovereign Nation-State Republics had agreed to (Articles of Confederation) by turning their convention into a Constitutional Convention. He had to work to get George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin to finally agree, and also had to work hard to get the States to ratify the thing. I think he meant well, but he was a statist at heart and wanted to create a central government which would eventually become what we’ve got today. Big mistake! He made it clear that he was a statist when he wrote in Federalist Papers Number 51 that the first thing a government is obliged to do is to empower itself to control the governed. He followed that up by noting that the second thing a government must do is oblige itself to govern itself. Well we today see that the General government did indeed empower itself to control the governed, but we also note that it is not doing very well at governing itself. 😉
   The opposite of Madison’s statism is carried behind the scenes in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, which yielded the subject of “Unalienable Rights”, which in his view were given each human being at birth by “Nature, or Nature’s God”. As such, (and as I see it personally, being an anarchist/Voluntaryist), no “man-made” government has any claim on my unalienable rights as a soul enmeshed in a human body which no man-made government can create or duplicate. Centralized power nowadays presumes to own our lives and even our bodies — ever hear of forced vaccinations? Ever heard of the power to draft citizens into the national military? Have you guessed the bitter truth behind government’s creation of a “war on drugs”, which implies that government has some right to own our bodies by virtue of decreeing what we may and may not put into our bodies? No man-made government has any brand on my ass, and I will not comply with the sinful activities of today’s national government. But I digress!
   Speaking of Rhode Island, I did a piece not too long ago about the Gaspee Affair, which Rhode Island celebrates each June. It has to do with the first armed assault by the Colonists, and the first shot against a British officer, three years before Lexington Green. I would encourage anyone to read this bit of history, which is not exactly hidden, but which is overshadowed by popular misconception, which has most Americans thinking that the first shot fired against British forces was on April 19, 1775 at Lexington Green. Rhode Island disagrees with that myth. Ever hear of the Gaspee Affair of 1772? Check it out —
   https://thementalmilitia.net/2017/07/27/namquid-point-ranch-revolution/
   And finally, I’ll close by sharing my view on Jefferson’s “Unalienable Rights”. Cause and Effect are never separate. The Creator, as “Cause”, created man, which is the Effect of the Creator’s creation. Inside the Soul of any man is the connection to his Creator, and the hierarchy of that association runs from Spirit to Soul to Psyche to Fleshly existence on earth. As Jesus Christ is purported to have said, “Know ye not that the Kingdom of Heaven is within you?”
   The root ofphilosophical anarchy is self-government. Self government carries with it something we call “Personal Responsibility”. Personal responsibility includes ownership over the content of one’s mentality. Americans used to sense and mostly understand that principle, but thanks to the illegal existence of the U.S. Department of Education and the CFR’s control over the mass media and the press (Fake News, as Trump has called it), most Americans look outward into the world of man-made governments for some external authority, that they can forego taking responsibility for their own lives, deeds, beliefs, and actions. Hence, what we are seeing in headlines around the world today – the illegal international war crimes spawned by our out-of-control central government, the tyranny of a global financial system, and a concerted outright psychological war against all of our moral and cultural tradition as honorable Americans.

   If I sound a bit too harsh, please forgive. I’m rushed to complete work I’m already way behind on here. I will share, finally!, something from Michael Boldin over at the Tenth Amendment Center, which came into my email box as a pleasant surprise. It’s his take on “Constitution Day”, and I think he says things better than I do, so please enjoy his take on this –
   https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/09/17/constitution-day-every-day-not-just-a-one-day-federal-mandate/
   Salute!
   Elias Alias, Honorably discharged US Marine and Viet Nam veteran, Voluntaryist, self-owning natural citizen of Montana, and *Not* a danged “U.S. Citizen”.

5. “What they did not have in their day was some means of setting things right in their relations to a Govt gone rogue, that is, short of war. ”

   The common law was the means by which the revolutionary forces dealt with the criminally aggressive British. The Declaration of Independence was a simple common law notice of mixed war.

   To claim that “our” founders were all on the same page, and they were outlaws is patently false.

   “That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:

   “That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

   “That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”

   That is as true now as it was when it was entered into the official record of the First Congress of the forming United States (plural) of America. That above, as well as the Declaration of Independence, describes the crime of mixed war.

   To claim that the victims are the outlaws is a ruse, why do people fall into that clap trap?

   “When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen’s U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.”

   http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm

   “In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right.”

   http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033

6. They might be called “Anti Govt.Exremists” today, But our founders were outlaws in a very real sense. Their names can be found on that document of High Treason – the Declaration of Independence.They levied war and revolt against the long established government – Britain. Is there any doubt as to what would have happened to Franklin, or Jefferson, or Washington if they had been captured ? The gallows. What they did not have in their day was some means of setting things right in their relations to a Govt gone rogue, that is, short of war. We do have the means, avoiding the horrors and destruction of intestine conflict by using, and living, the egalitarian, but very practical, compact between the States. The fiction of the General govt as Arbiter and overlord must be banished, erased, consigned to the dustbin. Make no mistake however, there is a human price in fighting tyranny. Our founders risked all…are we lesser men today ?

7. A “convention” of 12 States had no lawful power to “propose” a National Government that would then replace the existing voluntary mutual defense association: federation. “Constitution” day is celebrated by either frauds or their marks. Each State became independent of any National Government (such as The British Monarchy) during the Revolution that only became a war when the criminal British perpetrated War of Aggression for Profit (enslaving the targets targeted in the War of Aggression for Profit). Each State (except one) had their own Constitution. The Federal Government (not National) had a Constitution.

   The Constitution governing the Federal Government (not National) was bypassed by the out-laws who “proposed” a National Constitution to replace the existing Federal Constitution.

   “Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

   Rhode Island refused (did not agree) in Congress to convene in a convention that alters the existing Constitution on that Constitution day.

   How idiotic can people get, how fooled are the foolish?

   Not these guys:

   All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .”
   Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled

   “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”
   George Mason Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
   June 6, 1788

   “A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated.”
   Patrick Henry
   June 9, 1788

   “Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
   “But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national.”
   June 14, 1788

   “Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”
   George Mason
   June 17, 1788

   “Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experience of mankind, are against the idea of an extensive republic, but a variety of reasons may be drawn from the reason and nature of things, against it. In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, and decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion concerning it.”
   Brutus
   October 18, 1787,
   To the Citizens of the State of New-York.

   “Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army? Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands.”
   Philadelphiensis IX
   February 06, 1788

   “He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”
   Melancton Smith
   June 20, 1788

   “One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. ”
   Luther Martin writing notes at the Con Con Con Job in 1787 (Gag orders issued)

   “Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.”
   George Mason
   June 04, 1788

   “Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted – as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify. ”
   A Farmer warning of the potential for Civil War (which in fact came true) due to alteration from Federal (voluntary) to National (involuntary) government.

   Rhode Island also, officially, spelled out that “the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government”, and note: they did not say that Congress had agreed to propose an alteration from a Federal to a National government as was the law according to the Constitution.

   So bemoan all the un-constitutional criminal acts perpetrated by your modern day faction that opposes your faction and realize it is par for the course that was set when the first perpetrators perpetrated that un-constitution act to alter the constitution on that constitution day.

8. Am I pettifogging to point out a discrepancy – and a major one – in choosing Sept 17 as Constitution Day ? True enough, the Philadelphia convention did publish this charter for a new, general government on that day, and most – but not all – of the delegates did sign it. Certain other important facts seem to have been glossed over however, certain historic truths about the origins of our republic that should be very much on our minds today….Take a look at the roster of delegates shown above..you’ll see that they have been sent by their states ( All except Rhode Island, who boycotted the Convention !) It was the States – through their delegates – who hammered out this new Charter. As issued by the Convention on Sept 17, the constitution had no force of law. It was merely a proposal, and one not universally acclaimed. To gain legitimacy and force of law the states – met in their own conventions – had to approve and ratify it, those “Conventions of a number of the States” noted in the preamble to the Bill of Rights. It had been agreed at the Federal Convention that ratification by 9 out of the 13 states would suffice, but Massachusetts held out, demanding explicit guarantees for fundamental rights. They, and several other states, finally signed after additional amendments were promised, to be added at the first US Congress. The required ninth state , New Hampshire signed in June of 1788…( And guess who was the very LAST state to ratify ? you got it ! RHODE ISLAND, 1790 ! )…..My point here is that the States were the creators of the Federal/General Govt, giving it duties to perform that were best done collectively, rather than by the individual states. The States did NOT create the Fed so it would be their master. Confronting the imperial, all powerful and all consuming Fed we see today, it’s power metastizing like an octopus, and with our life, liberty and happiness become an obstacle in the way of the “Government Interest”, we are in much the same position as our pre revolutionary forefathers. The way out is there, but it is not armed conflict. Accept that the Fed will NEVER retreat from its imperialist power in the States…It will be up to the States themselves – asserting their prerogatives as defined in the Constitution – to restore the balance.