The Natural Right Of U.S. Citizens to Start Over With A New Constitution

Introduction: Do Not Resuscitate

Madison’s constitution, of 1789, is a failure because it failed to prevent an unelected centralized elite tyranny from exercising dictatorial powers over citizens.

The constitutional crisis in America of deep state agents who exercise illegitimate authority is a direct result of  the defective checks and balances in Madison’s flawed document.

There is no legal method to fix the problems of the lawless tyranny, and there is nothing of value left in preserving Madison’s constitution, or amending it. The flaws in Madison’s constitution are so severe that “fixing” it with amendments would simply end up, again, in a centralized tyranny of elites.

There is no reason to try to “fix” the constitution because there are no common values holding the citizens of this nation together in a common mission.

The social and cultural values of the Democrat socialists do not connect at any point with the cultural and social values of natural rights conservatives.

It is time to admit that the American government is a failure and, start over, with new two constitutions. One for the socialists. And, one for the natural rights conservatives.

Daniel Horowitz is coming to this same realization. He has the right idea about the need for a new political movement. But, he has not quite reached the conclusion that in order to solve the crisis, a new constitution is needed.

In his series of articles about the Republican cave-in on the omnibus budget, Daniel Horowitz wrote, “Conservatives lack a basic vision for the country and the apparatus, commitments, and consistency to see it through. Conservatives are homeless and have been for quite some time. We need a new party and a new movement. We need bold new leaders with innovative ideas that are rooted in timeless principles. We need to convene a Convention of States to deal with this problem systemically.”

“It takes a new movement to start a new party,” said Horowitz, “but it takes a new party to build that movement; otherwise it just gets sucked into the black hole of the GOP.”

Horowitz asks: What’s Next? But, he does not explain the mission or values of the new political movement.

While his analysis is a refreshing contrast to the Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh advice that conservatives  keep voting Republican, albeit “conservative” Republican, Horowitz fails to offer any concrete strategy for his call for a new political movement.

This article extends the Horowitz analysis by offering the historical and legal justification for jettisoning Madison’s failed constitution and starting over with two new constitutions, one for The Liberty States of America, the new natural rights republic, and the other for the Socialist States of America.

The new natural rights conservative movement that Horowitz is imagining is already here, and is called the Citizens Liberty Party. Its mission is to manage the civil divorce between Democrat socialists and natural rights patriots and to manage the creation of two new constitutions.

The Democrat socialists want their own new constitution that does not contain gun rights and free speech, but protects unlimited, state-funded abortion rights.

They have a natural right to pursue their new vision, but they have no moral right to impose their vision on the 63 million citizens who want nothing to do with the slavery of government socialism.

In order for the Democrats in California to leave the nation, and form the new Socialist States of America, they will require the political support of natural rights conservatives to call a convention of the states to replace the existing constitution.

In other words, as the final act of union, the two enemies within the divided nation must work together, one last time, to implement the civil dissolution, and to manage the transition to two new separate, independent nations.

Unlike other conservative calls for an Article V convention of the states, this article advocates that the both the socialists and the conservatives follow the lesson taught by Madison to use a convention states to draft their own new constitutions

There is no legal need for the socialists or the conservatives to abide by Article V.

The purpose of the convention of states is to offer citizens in each state a choice of 3 constitutional options:

  1. Allow the citizens of a state to vote to maintain its membership in the current S. constitutional framework, to be called the Former United States.
  2. Allow the citizens to vote to join the Socialist States of America, in confederation with California.
  3. Allow the citizens to join the Liberty States of America, the new natural rights republic.

Madison’s Historical Precedent of Starting Over

It is an incontrovertible historical fact that Madison, and the legislature of Virginia, called for the constitutional convention to “fix” the Articles of Confederation, which formed the first government of states rights.

This initiative by Virginia is the guiding legal historical moral authority that states must follow today in calling for a convention of the states. Five states joined Virginia back in 1786, and that is all that would be required today to call the convention of states.

The Congress, so assembled at the time, had nothing to do with this initial call for a convention, and the Congress today has no legal or moral authority to stop states from abolishing the current form of government.

Madison did not intend to amend the existing constitution. He knew when he left the Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government, in Annapolis, in 1786, that the Articles of Confederation would be replaced.

If he had promoted his efforts as “amending” the Articles of Confederation, he would have been legally obligated to follow the amendment process laid out in the Articles.

Madison intended to “fix” the Articles by starting over with an entirely new constitution, based upon the British social class mixed model of government. His model of government envisioned two social classes, the natural aristocracy and the commoners.

The two social classes would “check and balance” each other, and in order to prevent a centralized tyranny.

In other words, in order to unleash a centralized national government designed to benefit the natural aristocracy, Madison had to start over. The rules in the Articles had created a “perpetual union” and they were too cumbersome for Madison’s revolutionary mission.

Madison’s subterfuge of starting over with an entirely new constitution was a well-known fact of the 51 delegates who met in Philadelphia.

Nathan Dane, the representative from Massachusetts to the Convention, stated that since Madison’s “constitution appears to be intended as an entire system in itself, and not as any part of, or alteration in the Articles of Confederation” the Congress was powerless to take any action thereon.”

Elbridge Gerry, from Massachusetts, speaking about the Virginia resolution to establish a new national government stated, “The commission from Massachusetts empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This is the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.”

Madison’s motivation for “fixing” the Articles was based on the purported weakness in the Articles that allowed farmers to pay their taxes and their loan debt in paper money issued by the states.

Madison, and the 51 elites who wrote the new constitution, wanted to be paid in gold and silver, not paper money. In order to accomplish this goal, the elites had to eviscerate the legal authority of the states to issue money.

By the supreme law of the land, Madison’s constitution forced the farmers to pay in gold. And, the penalty for not paying their debts in gold, was confiscation of their land by the new central government.

This technique of elites obtaining farmer’s land explains the huge accumulations of land by the natural aristocracy during the period of time after 1789.

Because of the enduring functionality of Madison’s constitution for the elite classes, the same legal technique worked well after the Civil War in the debt-lien system of debt peonage, when the Plantation elite consolidated their holdings of land owned by the common farmers in the South.

When farmer’s failed to “pay out” at harvest time, the local merchants and bankers took the farmer’s land.

In order to protect the new government from the “tyranny of the common class majority,” who sought to oppress the “minority” of elites by being paid in paper money, Madison insulated the government from common citizens.

Madison’s constitution contains 8 fundamental flaws that stacked the deck in favor of the natural aristocracy.

He formed a branch of government, called the Senate, which would always be in the hands of the “virtuous” natural aristocracy.

And, Madison created a federal judiciary that was never subject to recall or vote by the commoners. The natural aristocracy in the Senate had sole power to approve the judges, for a term of life.

The great strategic political mistake of the state’s rights opponents to Madison’s centralized nationalistic government was not offering a complete state’s rights constitutional alternative for citizens to consider in 1787.

Madison’s nationalists were able to re-label themselves as “federalists” and to call themselves “the founding fathers.” They knew at the time that this label was a lie.

They knew that they were nationalists, in favor of a strong central government, and not federalists.

To the farmers, the term “Federalism” meant states rights, and the federalist ruse was successful in confusing the farmers to support the so-called “federalists.”

The choice offered to citizens by the federalists was to accept or reject the new constitution. And, the process of ratifying the new constitution was based upon force and fraud, not the legitimate consent of the governed.

The patriot’s mistake of not offering a constitutional alternative allowed the so-called federalists to label their state’s rights opponents as “the anti-federalists.”

“Anti-federalism meant against states rights, and in favor of a centralized national government. The mis-named anti-federalists would more accurately be labeled states rights populists.

The states rights proponents assumed that the Articles of Confederation would be seen by citizens as the logical alternative to Madison’s rules, but the Articles were not on the ballot in the fraudulent ratification process.

The fundamental fraud perpetrated by the federalists was deploying force and subterfuge to overthrow the first constitutional government of America.

The federalist fraud consisted of 3 inter-related illegal acts the federalists committed in implementing their new form of government.

  1. The delegates from each state exceeded their authority granted to them by their state legislatures to “fix” the Articles. The delegates from Massachusetts were instructed by their legislature to “solely” amend the Articles of Confederation to “render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.”

The Empire State’s delegates were under the same instructions as those from Massachusetts. Several weeks into the Philadelphia convention, two of the New York delegates realized the fraud and left, leaving only Alexander Hamilton.

Hamilton was prohibited, by the instructions of his legislature, from casting any votes, without the other two delegates. Instead of following his instructions, Hamilton signed the new constitution, on behalf of New York.

Hamilton later argued that he had not exceeded his authority, knowing in advance that he was lying.

In Federalist #78, Hamilton explained the importance that he attached to acting within his delegated authority. Hamilton wrote, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.”

In other words, Hamilton argues in #78 that his signing of the finished document, on behalf of New York, according to Hamilton, was “void.”

George Mason, the delegate from Virginia, stated that the delegates were “appointed for the special purpose of revising and amending the federal con­stitution, so as to obtain and preserve the important objects for which it was instituted.”

When Mason discovered the intent of Madison to overthrow the Articles, he refused to sign the finished document.

  1. The 51 elites in Philadelphia adopted an illegal process to ratify the new constitution. Even though the delegates acted under the authority of the states, they never asked either Congress or the state legislatures to approve the proposed Constitution.

Rather than follow the constitutional process of amending the Articles, the federalists adopted a resolution for separate ratifying conventions to be held in each state.

Their resolutions for ratification were placed in a separate document that was not attached to the main finished document submitted to Congress. The contents of Articles XXII and XXIII were passed, in secret deliberations, as a separate formal act adopted unanimously as an official act of the Convention.

The resolutions for ratification presented a unique, revolutionary process. The resolutions stated, “The ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.”

Congress subsequently sent those partial documents to each state, with no recommendations on how each state could proceed with calling the extra-legal ratifying conventions.

The resolutions did not contain safeguards on how the delegates in each state would be selected, resulting in special interest manipulation by the federalists to stack the conventions with supporters of Madison’s arrangement.

The selection of delegates in several states was done in secret, not by the vote of the citizens.

In other words, the ratifying conventions did not derive their authority from “the consent of the governed.” The delegates to the state ratifying conventions derived their authority to ratify the new constitution from a grant of authority that they gave to themselves.

In Pennsylvania, when the delegates to the ratifying convention learned of the fraud for ratification, they refused to attend, causing a lack of quorum.

The federalists in Pennsylvania sent out the secret police to restrain two delegates, against their will, and held them against their will at the convention, in order to preserve the subterfuge of a legitimate quorum.

The ratification of the new constitution in Pennsylvania was not legitimate.

The state’s rights leaders, like George Mason, called the ratification fraud of Madison’s nationalists exactly what it was. Mason wrote, “this outrageous violation employed all the arts of insinuation, and influence, to betray the people of the United States.”

In the only actual vote of citizens in any state on the new constitution, the citizens of Rhode Island rejected the Constitution by a vote of 2,714 to 238.

The citizens of North Carolina’s, at their 1788 convention, refused to adopt the constitution because it did not contain a citizen’s Bill of Rights. The federalists used their financial power on exports to manipulate and coerce North Carolina into ratifying the constitution, in 1791.

  1. The revolutionary character of what Madison did to overthrow the government is evident in that Madison, and the federalists, disconnected the new constitution from the founding document, The Declaration of Independence.

The American Declaration established the clear legal supremacy of the states. The States created the Union. The States created the Articles of Confederation. The States ap­pointed the first members of Congress.

Madison overthrew the nation’s first government, which was based upon the supremacy of the states and substituted a British social class system that was based upon the supremacy of the elites.

Because the British social class mixed system empowered the elites, from the get-go, that same social class of elites were able to obtain unchecked, unelected power in the swamp.

That same set of unfair rules would also allow global socialists to obtain unchecked power in the deep state apparatus to impose their socialist tyranny.

While Madison’s constitution is illegitimate and wildly undemocratic, it has had the attribute of being stable, as long as the two political parties continued to represent their respective social class interests.

When Obama converted the Democrat Party from a working class political movement to a global socialist movement, the force that provided political stability for Madison’s two class system was terminated.

No part of Madison’s text refers to the founding document.

No part of his text states that the purpose of government is to protect and preserve citizen natural rights.

No part of his text states that citizens have a natural right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government when the government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created.

Madison cleverly stated that his constitution was made to “form a more perfect union.”  His perfect union is not connected to any American legal or historical precedent. It is a de novo, radical subversion of the national values that formed the nation.

Madison connected his document to the constitutional traditions of Great Britain.

Because his document is philosophically vacuous, Madison’s subversion of moral values allows the socialists today to substitute their version of Marxist moral values for the values upon which the nation was based.

For Democrat socialists, “a more perfect union” means a global socialist totalitarian government.

The differences between Democrat socialists and natural rights conservatives about the founding principles of the nation are irreconcilable. The Democrat socialists reject the principles stated in the Declaration, and are justified in deploying their logic that America is a racist nation because Madison’s constitution is not connected to the Declaration.

The main point of my argument is that Madison’s U. S. constitution replaced the natural rights constitution, which was based upon the principles of the Declaration. The socialists will never accept the founding principles because those principles are not supportive of their goal of a global, socialist government.

In order to fix the constitutional dysfunction caused by Madison’s British constitution, his constitution must be replaced, not amended.

For natural rights conservatives, the new constitution should restore the founding principles of the Declaration.

The Two Amendment Clauses

The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and were ratified by the 13 states on March 1, 1781.

The Articles created a “perpetual union” of the 13 states. The opening paragraph, titled, A Pledge of Perpetual Union stated that “Each state must accept and agree to follow the decisions of the United States in Congress assembled. The states must follow all of the rules as stated in the Articles of Confederation. The union of states is meant to last forever.”

Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation specified that any amendments had to be ratified by all thirteen states, in contrast to Madison’s ratification processof special interest controlled conventions, in just nine states.

The Articles stated, “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.”

The moral principle requiring 13 states to amend the Articles was patterned after international trade treaty law that no nation could be bound by a treaty without its consent.

This same logic of international trade law applies today in justification of the socialists in California to form a confederation with other like-minded states, in forming the Socialist States of America

There is noth­ing in the text of the Articles of Confederation, particularly Arti­cle XIII, that suggests that Congress had any power to actually initiate, or call, for a convention of states.

Ar­ticle XIII required all amendments to be first proposed by Con­gress and then ratified by all thirteen state legislatures.  Madison’s constitution was not approved by Congress, nor by the state legislatures.

In contrast to the amendment process in the Articles, Madison’s constitution created a convoluted process to thwart citizens from initiating amendments. His second method of amendment in Article 5 has never been used successfully to amend his constitution.

His second method requires that 34 state legislatures call for a constitutional convention. The proposed amendments must subsequently be approved by 38 state legislatures.

The obvious flaw in Madison’s amendment process is as evident today, as it was when it was adopted.

Madison’s fundamental flaw is that his amendment process offers no solution for citizens to restore the rule of law, when the central government becomes tyrannical, yet is unwilling to amend the constitution because it would disrupt the elites arbitrary power?

George Mason stated that it “would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”

Madison agreed with Mason and promised that, “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive.”

In The Federalist #85, Alexander Hamilton stated that when states submitted the proper number of applications, Congress was “obliged” to call a convention and that “nothing is left to the discretion of Congress.”

The main point is that Madison’s amendment process did not require Congress to initiate the amendment process.

But, the central government has become oppressive and tyrannical, and Madison’s amendment process for ratification is too convoluted for citizens to overcome the oppression.

The only solution to end the elite tyranny in the swamp is for citizens to start over, with the socialists forming their own new nation, and natural rights conservatives restoring the original natural rights republic, based upon the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

Citizens who like the existing constitutional arrangement can vote to remain in the Former United States. 


During the period of time right before the Revolution, Thomas Paine wrote:

“All power exercised over a nation must have some begin­ning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.

Madison’s Constitu­tional Convention was called by the states. This is the one, most important, historical and legal principle from Madison’s usurpation that is significant today.

Madison, and the 51 delegates to his convention in Philadelphia, exercised illegitimate power because they assumed power without the consent of the governed.

They assumed power to eliminate the Articles, for the most base and venal reasons, to create a constitution that would empower and benefit themselves.

Madison usurped power in 1789, in exactly the same way that the undelegated, unrepresentative elites in the swamp today, usurp the power of citizens.

Madison’s usurpation, in 1789, caused the elite usurpation of constitutional authority today, in 2018.

While the rules adopted required nine states for ratification, four states did not ratify. One state, Pennsylvania, ratified in an illegitimate, fraudulent, ratification.

The consent of the governed was never obtained in any state because of the way Madison stacked the deck against the citizens.

While Madison and Hamilton argued in their Federalist Papers that no state was bound to obey the Constitution until its peo­ple gave their consent, the federalists coerced and subjugated the citizens of North Carolina, over a period of three years, to submit to the illegal authority of Madison’s constitution.

The federalists met in secret in Philadelphia. They drew the window blinds and did not issue public statements of their deliberations.

The notes that were taken of the convention by Madison distorted the truth to fit his agenda of overthrowing the Articles and empowering the elites.

The representation of the delegates at the convention was unilaterally undemocratic.

While 95% of the citizens at the time were farmers, not one farmer was present at the convention. The representatives were drawn exclusively from the rich and well-born, intent on placing a saddle on the backs, and riding the common citizens, with spurs and whips.

The mission of subverting the Articles was so important to the elites that they left the issue of slavery unresolved, knowing in advance that this omission would likely cause a civil war.

While the elite federalists held in common the notion that black people were entitled to natural rights, by God, they implemented a system of government that suggested that black people were entitled to 60% of the natural rights of white people.

But, the essential lesson of history, from Madison, is that his Constitu­tional Convention was called by the states. This most important historical and legal principle provides guidance for today.

Horowitz asks: What’s Next?

What comes next is a national political movement of 63 million Trump voters who accept that Madison’s constitution is a failure, and follow Madison’s example of starting over, with a brand new natural rights constitution.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of the Citizens Liberty Party.