Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Founders / Framers Minute: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5

The idea of the Senate having the liberty to choose their own officers and President Pro-tempore was not contested.

Founders / Framers Minute: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5

Founders / Framers Minute 11:
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.”

by Cornel Rasor

The office of Vice-President as the President of the Senate was contested but not bitterly. Many states had Lieutenant Governors that assumed the same responsibilities proposed for the Vice-President.1 There was concern, indeed a few of the anti-federalists thought the position dangerous, that a blending of the executive and legislative would prove injurious to the plan of the constitution.2

Some like Richard Henry Lee saw the position as simply unimportant.3 The framers however, thought it important enough to assure a proper station and election. The station would be one of only casting a “contingent” rather than a “constant” vote. Should a random senator be elected as senate president, he would lose his “constant” vote and render his state (before the 17th amendment) less represented.

The election would be the same as for the President since the Vice-president might be called upon to take over the executive duties. In this, the founders were concerned that lack of an immediate successor might render the country ill supplied to deal with difficulties that were extant when the president was removed from the scene for whatever reason.

This clause arises from the very idea of the executive being a representative of the states to nations abroad far more than of the people. The House has the distinction of being the direct representative of the people with the Senate the representative of the states as legislators (again, prior to ratification of the 17th amendment).

The idea of the Senate having the liberty to choose their own officers and President Pro-tempore was not contested

The final vote was 8 yes, 2 no and 1 absent

1We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President. Federalist 68

2“The establishment of a vice-president is as unnecessary as it is dangerous. This officer, for want of other employment, is made president of the senate, thereby blending the executive and legislative powers, besides always giving to some one state, from which he is to come, an unjust pre-eminence.” – George Clinton (Cato), Anti-Federalist No. 67, “Various Fears Concerning the Executive Department,” New York Journal, November 8, 1787

3“The vice president is not a very important, if not an unnecessary part of the system—he may be a part of the senate at one period, and act as the supreme executive magistrate at another.” – Richard Henry Lee (The Federal Farmer), Anti-Federalist No. 36, “Representation and Internal Taxation,” essay “Federal Farmer III,” October 10, 1787

View Fullscreen

Founders / Framers Minute 1: Article I, Section 1

Founders / Framers Minute 2: Article I, Section 2, Clause 1-2

Founders / Framers Minute 3: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3a

Founders / Framers Minute 4: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3b

Founders / Framers Minute 5: Article I, Section 2, Clause 4

Founders / Framers Minute 6: Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

Founders / Framers Minute 7: Article I, Section 3, Clause 1

Founders / Framers Minute 8: Article I, Section 3, Clause 2

Founders / Framers Minute 9: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3

Founders / Framers Minute 9: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4

 

Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

19 Comments on Founders / Framers Minute: Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5

  1. So…have a clue, please.

    Law (voluntary association for mutual defense) cannot be formed, founded, framed, or otherwise created by deception. To claim so is to be stupid, or worse, to be criminal.

    The Articles of Confederation were organic, made from as close to grass-roots as ever has happened in recent human history, and that voluntary association was deceptively usurped by an “Elite,” “Aristocratic,” “Warmongering,” “Slave Trading,” and “Central Banking Fraud and Extortion Racket,” army of criminals who managed to get people to believe that they were the “Federalist Party,” and they were here to help promote the public peace.

    Why is this at all difficult to acknowledge, know, realize, or if you actually “believe” you have a leg to stand on, refute?

    • “9. The Confederation government couldn’t help settle Revolutionary War-era debts. The central government and the states owed huge debts to European countries and investors. Without the power to tax, and with no power to make trade between the states and other countries viable, the United States was in an economic mess by 1787.” – https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-reasons-why-americas-first-constitution-failed

      So, were the United States to not pay their foreign debts? Under the Articles of Confederation they could not. That Articles of Confederation were abandoned; they could not even obtain a quorum to conduct business.

      These foreign debts were to important allies to American Independence, take for instance France:
      * There were more French soldiers than Americans at the battle of Saratoga.
      * It was the French fleet the bottled up the British at Yorktown; until the French fleet showed up the British were just waiting for the wind to change to evacuate Yorktown by boat.
      * The last battle of the American Revolution was fought off of India between French and British ships.

  2. Fabricating fiction so as to cover-up the crimes perpetrated by evil people is noted.

    The “power to tax” according to those who construct fiction out of fact is, in reality, the power to perpetrate fraud and extortion under the color of law. People are not always servile and stupid enough to buy into that construction of that fraud.

    “It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.” Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

    “The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.”
    George Mason, 1787

    “Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.”
    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    COUNTY OF SCOTT
    First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
    vs
    Jerome Daly, Defendant.
    December 9, 1968

    “But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year’s interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government’s discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt’s benefits. “In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence,” explained Hamilton, “it assumes most of the purposes of money.” Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton’s debt program.

    “To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because “[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law,” such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.”
    Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy, by William Watkins

    “They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government. ”
    “Rhode Island Is Right! ”
    The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787

    Back to fiction:
    “That Articles of Confederation were abandoned; they could not even obtain a quorum to conduct business.”

    While Americans were dealing with enemies of Liberty domestic, in each county, in each state, in the federation of independent states, a revolutionary battle occurred that proved the validity of voluntary mutual defense association, and at the same time that revolutionary battle sent the enemies of Liberty domestic into full-on, desperate, criminal action. the criminals set out to “abandon” the voluntary mutual defense association (where tax is voluntary) and replace that voluntary mutual defense association with a fraudulent, counterfeit, version, whereby “Tax” is instead of sound investment, “Tax” becomes a covered-up form of Debt Slavery.

    Those who created false debt, doing so by fraud, demanded their pounds of flesh, and they would get those pounds of flesh by hook and by crook, and their modern counterparts have learned well by the examples offered in fact based history. Pay your fiction writers well, pay them out of the stolen loot fund, give them cause to help enslave everyone.

    • Goes to show you are good at something, tautology, since “fabricating” and “fiction” are a meaningless repetition in close succession of an idea, statement, or word. Good job special person!

      Articles of Confederation
      VIII.
      “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

      The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.”

      That does not sound voluntary…not to mention some States did not honor their obligation.

      As far as the States being innocently minding their own business that is not a historical fact. Major irreconcilable issues existed due to Interstate Commerce…navigation of waterways being one…money issued individually by each State and depreciating was another:

      James Madison’s Preface to the “Notes of the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787”
      “In the internal administration of the States a violation of Contracts had become familiar in the form of depreciated paper made a legal tender…”

      And another example to refute that ALL Americans were just wanting to left peacefully alone in the Counties and States in that era:
      “..While Jefferson was praising the French upheaval as “The most sacred cause that man was ever engaged in” the Americans were cheering, from Boston salons to frontier cabins, the news that revolutionary France had declared war on England and Spain. The popular outcry made only more anguishing the diplomatic dilemma of the hour: By the Treaty of 1778 with France, the new nation was committed to aid its European ally, specifically to defend French possessions in the Caribbean, with a Navy that America did not possess. After meeting with his Cabinet to weigh the explosive situation, Washington decided not to be a Presidential prisoner of “commitment” in the West Indies – ….., Washington issued, in April of 1793, the first Presidential declaration of neutrality. The zealots of anti-monarchism, who were as impassioned as the crusaders of anti-Communism of an age to come, progressed quickly from rage to riot. As John Adams wrote of the ensuing hysteria in the streets of the capital city of Philadelphia, “ten thousand people….day after day threatened to drag Washington out of his house and effect a revolution in the government.” The mobs finally were dispelled not by speeches but by germs: a sudden outbreak of yellow fever sent some half of the city’s 43,000 citizens either to death or to flight. By the view of Adam’s, the Republic escaped overturning by virtue of neither the government’s power nor Washington’s prestige: the day and the Presidency were simply saved by an epidemic.” – “The Living Presidency” – Emmet John Hughes

      Washington kept the USA out of War when feral mobs wanted to go to War alongside France in 1793.

          • Before I comment I back-up my comments on my own webpage. I’ve tried 3 times to send a specific response to the fiction writer. Each time the comment appears to be sent after I pass the Captcha Test as if the comment was sent correctly. Each time (3 times now) the specific response fails to post. I could try again but my thinking is such that there may be something in the content that causes the failure.

          • Whatever the the problem, it doesn’t show here as held for any reason. Nothing on hold for any reason other than the known spammers. In other words, it didn’t make it this far.

  3. No button to respond to Bret, so the following is to respond to Bret.

    Bret wrote:

    “Whatever the the problem, it doesn’t show here as held for any reason. Nothing on hold for any reason other than the known spammers. In other words, it didn’t make it this far.”

    I can respond again, to see if the accurate words in defense will publish, but I am asking for permission to try. There is a possibility that the problem is on my end, and I do not want to add more work to people whose work load is probably already heavy.

  4. TEST, I sent (cut and pasted) my response to the fictional comments. That was sent moments before this is being sent. In the comments just sent moments ago is a link to an article by Gary North on Free Banking, as opposed to the one purse idea.

  5. The following is half of the comments that have failed 4 times to post, and again on my end, everything appears to work the same as the comments that are published, the only difference is that the page that loads after sending the comment is a page with my comment on it in some cases, a page that does not have my comment on it in other cases, and in those other cases the comment I send appears later, but in the case of the comments that are lost between sender and receiver, the comment leaves the sender the same way, but the comment never reaches the sender.

    Half of my comments to the fiction writer:

    “That does not sound voluntary…not to mention some States did not honor their obligation.”

    That, once again, is fiction. Following is a very well written explanation of voluntary association for mutual defense.

    “All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
    The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
    Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free.”
    Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

    In the First Congress of the Federated (confederation) of Independent States is the following:

    “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:”

    Someone writing fiction today may assume the opposite of voluntary association to be the definition of the power of law. Rather than a voluntary association for mutual anything, other than mutual destruction of innocent people for profit, the power of law is turned up-side-down and claimed, falsely, to be involuntary servitude whereby the subjects of the false flag, false front, false law, are consumed in the process of extracting everything worth stealing from them, in due time.

    Example:
    “That does not sound voluntary…not to mention some States did not honor their obligation.”

    So…the example set by Generalissimo Washington, after the criminals took over, is to enforce extortion payments by conscripting (enslaving) a National Army to invade the formerly independent State so as to collect the National Debt payments from those who dare to refuse to pay it. No investigation by Grand Jury in the county where the alleged “tax evader” is busy producing anything worth stealing. No presentment presented to the one individual who is presumed to be innocent of any crime. No offer of remedy offered to the accused after an investigation by Grand Jury in that county. No trial by the country to determine, in that county, if that alleged “tax evader” is guilty of anything at all. The dictator enslaves a massive army of aggression for profit, taking whoever can be hijacked from every formerly independent state, and the dictator does what dictators always will do when assuming absolute power.

    “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

    “As far as the States being innocently minding their own business that is not a historical fact.”
    Fiction writer on this web page.

    The fiction writer now creates a fictional character that has made an easily disputed claim, but where is this fictional character? The character making that dubious claim is not me. For one thing, no State can be innocent or guilty, since individuals are responsible, and accountable, for what individuals do, and the collectivist mindset of dubious origin is exemplified in this type of fiction. For another thing, some States were handily taken-over by criminal elements that include those criminals in Massachusetts running their central banking debt scam, shown in the events that later became known as Shays’s Rebellion. And there were those States taken-over by the Slave “Owners”, including the carriers, or Slave Merchants, and Slave Traders.

    Then Mr. Fiction writer turns to the Money Monopoly Scam idea. To help refute that idea that there has to be one money, one purse, one “official” money lender, the following help may be welcome to those who want help.

    “In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
    One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises’ suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
    Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard’s solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
    There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.
    There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
    Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.”

    • The second half of my comments that failed to publish 4 times was sent just now, and included in that text is a link to the Lew Rockwell Web Page where the words of Gary North are published; example: “There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Gary North.

      I can wait and see if the 2nd half of my comments sent just now did, in fact, manage to get to Redoubt News, to be moderated concerning the link. If nothing was received by Redoubt News after I just sent the second half of my comments, then I can try sending the second half of my comments without the link; another TEST to find the problem. It would be very interesting to me to find out that the Lew Rockwell Web Page is somehow tagged as spam.

          • It was not the web link that caused the failure. When is sent that last reply, with that web link, I didn’t even get the Captcha test, it went straight to “I’m not a robot”, and then I sent it straight to a published comment.

            I tried sending the rest of the text after the web link and it failed. So, I’m going to break that up and try sending another relevant quote concerning the powers that be when those powers create and maintain a One Purse Money Monopoly.

            “In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
            One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises’ suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
            Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard’s solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
            There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.
            There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
            Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.”
            https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/gary-north/fools-gold-2/

            Or from less recent history:

            “First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.
            It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.
            If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.
            This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.
            Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
            Benjamin Tucker, State Socialism and Anarchism:
            HOW FAR THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY DIFFER (1888)

  6. That last comment is, in my opinion, a vital part of the problems associated with the involuntary political economy, as compared to the voluntary, moral, lawful, political economy. To go down either road: A. Freedom, Liberty, Responsibility, Accountability, Morality, Law, or B. Enslavement, Despotism, Response – inability, No accountability, Immorality, and ubiquitous crime, is summed up in that phrase offered by Richard Cobden: “when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise.”

    That is, at least to me, such a vital part of the mess people are in these days, causing so much deception, violence, division, hatred, conflict, misery, and death, that some effort on my part to communicate that information is warranted. So…the following is the last part of the message that would not send as a whole message, or comment, in answer to the fiction being written and published on this web page.

    Back to the storytelling:

    “And another example to refute that ALL Americans were just wanting to left peacefully alone in the Counties and States in that era:”

    Who made-up such an outrageous story? The answer is clearly that the fiction writer alone is accountable for such an outrageous story.

    More from His-story:

    “As John Adams wrote of the ensuing hysteria in the streets of the capital city of Philadelphia, “ten thousand people….day after day threatened to drag Washington out of his house and effect a revolution in the government.”

    Washington (warmonger), John Adams (British Loyalist), and Alexander Hamilton were members of the so-called (falsely called) Federalist Party. Those people made a deal with the Slave Traders in the south, to subsidize the African Slave Trade for as long as they could, and in return, the Warmongering, Aristocratic, Central Banking Fraud Criminals created a National Government, but they had to do so by devious means: perpetrating fraud. Fraud at that level is treason.

    Each individual is responsible, perhaps not accountable, to their own willful, or accidental, actions. If someone starts claiming that the State did it, and they do not mean to account for each individual doing whatever they did in time and place, then someone starts down that stupid, and servile, collectivist story telling.

    • 1) Under the Articles of Confederation there were Slave Holding States with no limitations.

      2) The Constitution, although it should have banned slavery outright, at least set a time when the importation of slaves could be discontinued: Article I, Section. 9. “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,…”

      3) John Adams was our Ambassador to England during the writing of the Constitution, therefore, he could not have been one of, “Those people made a deal with the Slave Traders in the south,…”

      So, you purport on previous posts the Article of Confederation were superior to the Constitution…but when problems with the AoC’s are pointed out you revert to Holier-Than-Thou Anarchic principles. So innocent.

      Your long posts, composed of quotes which do have some merit, amount to, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with B.S.”

  7. “1) Under the Articles of Confederation there were Slave Holding States with no limitations.”

    The point pointed out is the opposing connections among people. One connection among people is called a Federal (voluntary) connection. The opposite connection among people is an involuntary connection. Clearly, slaves are not connected voluntarily. Masters are not federated to their slaves. Slaves are not federated to their so-called Masters.

    A federated connection among people is explained by the first congress during the decision to publish, or not publish, a Declaration of Independence. People exerted their right to secede from the federal union with the British Slave Trading, Warmongering, Central Banking Frauds, pretending to be Christians.

    “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 reinforced in the following 2 quotes:

    The Uniform Bonding Code – (UBC)
    9.2 – Escalation

    “A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
    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.”

    THE COMMERCIAL LIEN RIGHT AND THE MILITARY LIEN RIGHT
    “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.”

    The people working under The Articles of Confederation at the Federal level did not enforce a National Tax, so as to create the demand for a National Debt-based Money, run by Central Banking Frauds. It was a federal connection: voluntary.

    In some States people were connected federally, at least in the sense that they could go to another, less costly, State, when a State became despotic, as was the case in Massachusetts. Some states subsidized profits flowing from Slaves to so-called Masters. Some States worked to free those slaves.

    Under the Articles of Confederation (a federal union in fact) States reserved the right to secede from the Union, for obvious, demonstrable reasons. America, as a federation of independent states, was in the process of seceding from a federal union with a despotic British Empire, a criminal organization operating under the color of law. People in each State were familiar with the consequences of assuming that the association is mutual, beneficial for all, and therefore voluntary, and then when the blood starts flowing the opposite is demonstrated as a fact.

    I wish to be absolutely clear that many individual people within the set of people called the British are always individuals, and at no time is there a creation of a separate being, a corporate being, an all-powerful single entity that takes on responsibility itself, and is accountable IT-self. Each individual is responsible and accountable. This applies to people who constitute the false Federalist Party, or people who constitute the Nazi Party, each individual is responsible: the things, like the Nazi Party, or the Federalist Party, is not responsible, nor is it accountable for itself.

    If I say the Federalist Party did this or did that, such as perpetrating fraud, or treason, or warmongering, or extortion under the color of law, the words are intended to convey a need to apply due process of law, on each individual accused, so as then to try the case before the country, so that the country, in trial by the country, can decide the fact at issue concerning any individual, so as to facilitate effective remedy, defense, restitution, or other lawful cures.

    That is what the British could have done when facing a Declaration of Independence, or an angry Mob throwing tea off a dock. But the British Aristocrats had their Slave Trade profits to protect, their Central Banking Fraud profits to protect, and their Aggressive Wars for Profit to maintain.

    The British criminals did not agree that the American connection to the British was Federal. Is that clear? Can that point be prioritized over any further attempts to assassinate my character by creating a fictional version of me?

    “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,…”

    That amounts to a confession of criminality of the highest order, leaving no need to try the case, it is a confession in fact. Whoever wrote that, or signed that, is accountable, and responsible, for that confession in fact. Millions of innocent people were thereby sent to hell on earth. As to what the country might decide about that crime, there is only conjecture, since there was never a case (as far as I know) following that crime up through the due process of law.

    There was never a case (as far as I know) whereby an innocent individual slave went to the county grand jury, to then seek equal protection under the common laws of free people in liberty, whereby the impartial, honest, and discrete members of the grand jury investigated and found cause to present the accused slave “owner” with a court date. Instead the people, as a whole, ignored the law in those cases whereby criminals made slaves out of innocent people. That is law turned on its head, and is that clear or not? Can that be acknowledged before any further diversion from the topic to my personal – and my fictional – character?

    Many did not look the other way, but none of the people, as far as I know, afforded those innocent people their equal access to the law, which perverts the law on fundamental grounds. It is fundamentally right to defend yourself when there is no law afforded to you, or where the law is perverted and turned into a criminal organization that subsidizes crime against you. For that same fundamental reason it is fundamentally right in the case with the British invasion of America, those defending had the right to do so; it works by the same fundamental principle. The same fundamental principle works on the individual level, in any case, anywhere, anytime, or there is no law in that case. When the criminals win, there is no law, proven by the injuries that continue to be inflicted upon the innocent. When the defenders win, winning their freedom, there is law, proven by the fact that the criminals are no longer injuring the innocent. Is that unclear?

    “So, you purport on previous posts the Article of Confederation were superior to the Constitution…but when problems with the AoC’s are pointed out you revert to Holier-Than-Thou Anarchic principles. So innocent.”

    The Articles of Confederation were not superior according to those who broke the rules written in the Articles of Confederation, as those people created a Nation State in place of the former Federation of Independent States. So, for those people, obviously, those Articles were inferior, not superior, to the crimes they launched in place of that voluntary association. Lacking the power to subsidize the African Slave Trade in every State, is not as superior as having the power to enforce African Slavery in every state, depending upon who has the power to decide what is or is not superior. The so-called Constitution, in writing no less, subsidizes a known crime, the crime of African Slavery. Who decides what is superior or not superior, and what process is used to make that decision?

    More fiction:
    “but when problems with the AoC’s are pointed out you revert…”

    The problems with the Articles of Confederation included the problem of paying off debts to whoever was owed debt in fact. I offered an answer to that specific problem. An example of how that problem was working out, within the federal association, was the events that became known as Shays’s Rebellion.

    Shays’s Rebellion, so-called, was explained very well in that lecture (fact-based instead of fiction based, not “holier than thou”) whereby an obvious abuse of the law power in Massachusetts occurred, concerning the collection of dubious debt, and efforts to access due process of law failed. The people against the criminals in government lost the battle and they ran like runaway slaves to a free state, a less criminal state, a state where runaway slaves can find a semblance of due process of law.

    In that federal case, the federal government ought to have stepped in, and the law ought to have been reinstated, affording each individual due process of law, trial by the country. Rather than help the criminals in the Massachusetts government return to law, provide just remedy, etc., the federal government employees did nothing. Does that make the Articles of Confederation inferior to something better, or is that a failure attributable, accountable, to individual people; people in positions of power?

    Did the federal government have the power to help restore law in Massachusetts under the Articles of Confederation? The Federal government afforded the people a means by which the British, the largest criminal army on the planet, were driven from their goal of enslaving Americans. The Federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, was somehow incapable of returning Massachusetts to rule of law? Blame the piece of paper, not actual people with names? Blame a Man-of-Straw?

    Did the people in the federal government have the power to intervene in Massachusetts, to return to the people their power to try any case, of dubious debt, or corruption, or any other fact that matters? Do the people in government, anywhere, anytime, have the power to return law power to the people themselves, give us back our due process, as eluded to in the Bill of Rights, or exemplified in that Declaration of Independence?

    So the defects of any federal agreement are thereby comparable to any other type of connection between any number of people. In the federal agreement, if you don’t want to pay a dubious debt, you don’t, and if there is law, then the country, through trial by jury, which is trial by the country, is afforded jurisdiction to settle the matter definitively; not a dictator doing whatever he may please to do to satisfy what he alone wants anywhere and anytime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*