State Sovereignty In the Democratic Republic of America

Laurie Thomas Vass, The Citizens Liberty Party

Part 1. The Genesis of American Centralized Tyranny

“We the People” is the single most damaging text of Madison’s Constitution, in terms of damaging state sovereignty and individual natural rights.

The text has been used by the U. S. Supreme Court, for 230 years, as the justification for the Federalist conversion of the American government from a natural rights individualistic culture of individual states, to a centralized, consolidated national government.

The charade of “We the People” hides the fact that there were no “We the People,” who wrote the Constitution. There were only 37 self-appointed, self-selected, financial elites who signed an unbalanced, unfair set of rules that empowered the elites with perpetual control over non-elites.

Madison called for the Grand Convention in a resolution to the Virginia Legislature. Only 6 states responded to Madison’s call to amend the Articles of Confederation.

The seven states formed a phantom shadow government, called the “Confederation Congress” to manage the affairs of the convention.

Six states refused to respond to Madison’s resolution because they wanted the authentic, real, national Congress created by the Articles, to authorize the convention.

Madison’s shadow government issued a resolution that the delegates would meet in May of 1787, in Philadelphia, for the sole, exclusive purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation.

Madison wrote the resolution, which stated:

A Convention of delegates should meet “for the sole purpose of revising the articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.”

Madison knew that “amending” the Articles was a lie when he wrote the resolution.

Academics and legal scholars, today, who defend Madison’s Constitution, know that it is a lie, and continue to cover up the authentic facts with pabulum about “demi-gods,” and “Founding Fathers.”

“We the People” is a collectivist description of a myth that the entire population sat down together, and agreed to form a more perfect union. It is not based upon individual natural rights, and the text can easily be adopted by the socialist Democrats today to justify imposing their form of totalitarian collectivism on non-socialists.

The 37 elites who signed the Constitution are no more “We the People,” than a minority of socialists who claim today to be “We the People.”

Among the so called “Founding Fathers,” there was not one representative of the common citizens.

No farmers, no tradesmen, no small merchants. Just wealthy northern bankers, and southern plantation slave-owners.

A single person, Gouverneur Morris, a wealthy elite from New York, converted the original text in the Preamble, “We the People of the individual United States,” followed by a detailed listing of the 13 states, to “We the People of the United States, omitting all reference to the states entirely.

Before Morris made his secret change in the text, the parties to the new contract would have been the governments of the individual states, and a new national government. The text in the Preamble would have been just like the text in the Articles of Confederation, before Morris made his secret change.

The legal entity being created would have been a confederation of states, who agreed to delegate limited powers to the new Federal government.

After Morris made his change, the parties to the contract were a collectivist, synthetic, mythical entity, “We the People,” and a single, consolidated national government, that operated directly on all “We the People.”

The 37 elites who signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787, had not seen the change made by Morris, before they saw the document, for the first time, on September 12. Morris made his change in the text on September 11, 1787.  His change, and the entire document, was presented to the delegates on September 12, 1787.

There was no debate, and no discussion about the change in the text. The fix was in, and all of the elites understood the implication of the change in converting the government from a confederation of states to a centralized national government that would assume the power of the “Supreme Law of the Land,” over all the state governments and all the mythical “We the People.”

There was no need for a public debate. All the elites knew that they needed a centralized national government in order to gain supreme financial and legal control over the government, in order to be paid taxes and debt in gold and silver.

The entire process of appointing delegates to the Constitutional Convention was a fraud. The various states, either appointed delegates, or allowed the delegates to self-select themselves, to attend the Convention.

Initially, 73 delegates were appointed or selected.

The appointed delegates were given explicit instructions, from their state legislatures that their mission in Philadelphia was to “amend” the existing Articles of Confederation.

But, amending the Articles was not Madison’s intent. From the time he left the Annapolis Convention, in September of 1786, Madison was privately communicating his intent to overthrow the Articles of Confederation.

The cabal in Annapolis that hatched this secret plan consisted of 12 elites, from 5 states, all of whom agreed that the Articles must be abolished.

Of the original 73 delegates, 18 of the delegates learned of Madison’s intent to implement a new government, and chose not to attend.

Of the original 73 delegates appointed, 55 attended the Convention, for limited durations. The entire delegation of New York left Philadelphia, leaving a single representative, Alexander Hamilton, whose instructions from the state legislature forbid him from acting without the presence of the other delegates.

Hamilton proceeded to illegally sign the Constitution, on behalf of the entire state of New York.

Of the 55 delegates who attended, only 37 delegates signed the document. George Mason, like many other natural rights patriots in opposition, simply left Philadelphia, and refused to sign it.

The document contained an illegal amendment to the Articles that required Madison’s Constitution to be ratified by 9 states. “We the People” was actually “We the People,” of only 9 states.

The entire ratification process was a fraud that evaded the legal authority of the 13 state governments, as required by the Articles. The rigged ratification conventions included corruption and fraud, including the use of the police power of the State of Pennsylvania to coerce their state delegates to vote for the new constitution.

Part 2. The Judicial Legacy of “We the People” on State Sovereignty

The rulings by the U. S. Supreme Court, that subordinated the sovereignty of state governments to the federal government, can best be understood when placed into the context of economic and financial interests of the elites.

“We the People” is continually deployed by the Supreme Court as the legal justification to protect and preserve the privileged political status of the elites to use the power of government for their own financial advantage.

The best historical analysis of the Constitution, and the ensuing 230 year history court rulings based upon “We the People,” is Charles Beard’s 1913 book, an Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.

Beard begins by making a distinction between personal financial assets and real estate assets.

The northern Founding Fathers were bankers and lawyers who needed the new Constitution to protect their personality assets, which included “money, public securities, manufactures, and trade and shipping.”

The northerners were the protagonists in Philadelphia, and assumed an offensive posture in eliminating the Articles of Confederation. Gouvenor Morris, who changed the text, was a northern financial elite.

The southern Founding Fathers needed to protect their real estate and slaves from northern depredations. The southerners were primarily in a defensive posture to limit northern financial interests from harming their southern way of life.

However, since the southern elite had bought the Revolutionary War bonds for pennies on the dollar, from destitute common farmer-soldiers, they had a common interest with the northern bankers in being paid their principal and interest in gold and silver, not the nearly worthless dollars issued by the state governments.

In other words the common point of collaboration between the northern and southern elites lay in eliminating the authority of state governments to issue paper money. The authority of state governments would be replaced by a consolidated federal authority that would become the “Supreme Law of the Land,” in order to compel citizens to pay their debts in gold and silver.

As Beard explained, “The Constitution was an essentially economic document based upon the concept that the fundamental private rights of property are anterior to government and morally beyond the reach of popular majorities… A “large property-less mass was excluded from participation in all stages of the process…The Constitution was ratified by a vote of probably not more than one-sixth of the adult males… Put differently, the Constitution was created by and for “substantial property interests.”

The Federalist elites possessed a false pride that they alone were smarter than the common herd, just like the socialists today, who claim to have a superior mental ability to make decisions on behalf of all citizens.

As Hamilton wrote in Federalist #1, the new constitution was, “a unique event in the history of the world; finally government was going to be established by reflection and choice rather than force and fraud.”

Subsequently, the Federalists engaged in force and fraud to ratify their new constitution that granted them perpetual power to make laws by their own reflection. The fraud included Hamilton’s signing the document, without legal authority, on behalf of all of New York.

The job of the U. S. Supreme Court was to deploy the language in the Preamble to preserve the elite’s privileged power.

Beginning in 1793, the Supreme Court began cementing the foundation of the consolidated, centralized national government that eviscerated the sovereignty of state governments, using the logic of “We the People.

In Chisholm v. Georgia, (1793), the first chief justice, John Jay wrote,

“In establishing the Constitution, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, ‘We the People of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the State Governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner.”

Jay was born in December, 1745, into a wealthy family of New York merchants and government officials. It was politically imperative for him to use “We the People” as the mythical ruse that would allow his wealthy northern Federalists to solidify their position of privilege over the mythical synthetic mass of citizens, called “We the People.”

He wrote,

“The Supreme Court has denied the assumption that full and unqualified sovereignty still remains in the states or the people of a state, and affirm[ed], on the contrary, that, by express words of the constitution, solemnly ratified by the people of the United States, the national government is supreme within the range of the powers delegated to it; while the states are sovereign only in the sense that they have an indisputable claim to the exercise of all the rights and powers guarantied to them by the constitution of the United States, or which are expressly or by fair implication reserved to them.”

His logic is that “the people” in their capacity as individual citizens in the states are a different legal class than the “We the People” who agreed to form the new constitution. When “We the People” citizens gave their initial consent to form the new constitution, the citizens in the states agreed to subordinate the sovereignty of their state governments to the federal government, forever. 

In Marbury v Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall borrowed from the text of the Declaration, which was not in Madison’s Constitution, in order to justify the principle of judicial review, an undelegated power not in the Constitution.

Marshall used a derivative of “We the People” by citing “The people,” as the term appeared in the Declaration.

Marshall wrote,

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

Marshall’s logic of his opinion hinges upon the idea that the synthetic, imaginary entity “the people,” established the Constitution, following the logic of Morris in the Preamble. The grant of authority that “the people,” gave to the Federal government was not from the states, but from “the people.”

Marshall then connects the authority of the people to establish a constitution with the legal imperative that the original grant of authority established a “Supreme Law,” for all of time immemorial. As Marshall noted, the grant of authority drom the people “was designed  to be permanent.”

Marshall wrote,

The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it…It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.

After “We the People” established the government, according to Marshall, only the Supreme Court could interpret what the law was.

Marshall wrote,

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

Marshall’s opinion meant that only, and exclusively, the Supreme Court, henceforth, could say what the law was in all federal and state courts. His phrase “original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words,” means there is no limit on the authority of the Court to say whatever it wants about the law.

When a majority of conservatives sit on the Supreme Court, the law promotes corporate interests. When a majority of socialists sit on the Supreme Court, the law promotes social welfare justice.

Marshall’s entire bogus judicial edifice of judicial review rests on the synthetic, imaginary concept that “We the People” created the Constitution. A truthful and honest description of history would state that “We the People” is really 37 elites, who masqueraded as “We the People.”

In McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819), Chief Justice Marshall wrote a unanimous opinion that the laws adopted by the federal government are the unquestioned supreme law of the land, over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments.

In a re-play of the arguments over the text of the 10th Amendment involving power “expressly” delegated from the states to the Federal government, Marshall turned the 10th Amendment on its head by ruling that the Constitution granted to the Federal government unstated, unwritten, “implied” powers over the states.

If Madison had not intervened against inserting the word “expressly” into the 10th amendment, Marshall’s justification for adopting “implied” powers would have been evaded. In the first place, Marshall argues that it was not the states that delegated powers, it was “We the People.”

In the second place, he argues that since the states did not preclude “implied” powers in the 10th Amendment, that implied powers must therefore be authorized.

The State of Maryland argued that,

The powers of the General Government, it has been said, are delegated by the States, who alone are truly sovereign, and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possess supreme dominion.

Marshall argued that “We the People,” granted the authority to the Federal government, not the states, and that after “We the People” granted this supreme power, the citizens had no more power to give.

Marshall wrote,

Those powers are not given by the people of a single State. They are given by the people of the United States, to a Government whose laws, made in pursuance of the Constitution, are declared to be supreme. Consequently, the people of a single State cannot confer a sovereignty which will extend over them… the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is “ordained and established” in the name of the people, and is declared to be ordained, The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their act was final…It has been said that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the State sovereignties, and had nothing more to give.

Marshall cited the penumbra of implied powers that he saw Article I, Section 8, the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” which gave Congress the power to establish a national bank. Not only did Marshall envision a penumbra that allowed the Federal Government to create a Bank, his penumbra also implied that the U. S. Government could own 20% of the stock of the bank, along with 4000 private, wealthy investors.

Marshall wrote,

Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word “expressly,” and declares only that the powers “not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people,” thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other.”

Consequently, the implied powers, not cited in the Constitution, but not “expressly prohibited,” in Article 10, granted the government the authority to charter a bank, and to own stock in the bank, with other private and foreign investors.

Marshall wrote,

The bill for incorporating the Bank of the United States did not steal upon an unsuspecting legislature and pass unobserved. Its principle was completely understood, and was opposed with equal zeal and ability. After being resisted first in the fair and open field of debate, and afterwards in the executive cabinet, with as much persevering talent as any measure has ever experienced, and being supported by arguments which convinced minds as pure and as intelligent as this country can boast, it became a law…it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this Court that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is a part of the supreme law of the land.

In a comprehensive, chilling statement of Federalist totalitarian ideology, Marshall argued that political power must be taken away from the states, in order to be exercised exclusively by the Supreme Court. His description of the totalitarian powers of the Federal government is a mirror image of Leviathan that compelled obedience to the rule of law.

The logic of subverting the Articles with Madison’s constitution, was described by Marshall, it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective Government, possessing great and sovereign powers and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all.

Only the Federal elites could hold power, but their totalitarian paternalism would exercise the power for the benefit of common citizens.

Marshall wrote,

Its powers are granted by them, (“We the People”) and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.

Marshall’s Leviathan had awesome, unlimited powers, and just like in Hobbes, once the citizens granted the elites power, there was no recourse.

Marshall wrote,

It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof,” “shall be the supreme law of the land,” and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it.

The consequence of Marshall’s “implied” power is not seen from the perspective of legal jurisprudence. The consequence is the exercise of raw political power to use the resources of government to benefit one social class over another social class.

By 1819, the Second Bank was the largest, most profitable, financial institution in the world, and its investors included 1000 wealthy European investors, which is the precursor event in the establishment of the global financial deep state ties between U. S. banks, and foreign banks.

As is the historical case of all asset speculation and money inflation caused by the financial elites, the Second Bank failed to control money growth, leading to an asset-based financial collapse in 1819. Then, following the well-known fiscal policy of the elites, the Bank used a tight money policy to inflict financial damage on common citizens in the form of high unemployment and collapsing real estate farm values.

As a special bonus for the elites, as a result of the fiscal policies of the Bank, the directors of the Baltimore Branch of the Bank were able to buy up the farmer’s land, for pennies on the dollar, when he farmers could not repay their mortgages in the required gold and silver.

Continuing the charade of “We the People,” in Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that:

The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. . . . The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.

In League v. De Young, (1851), the Supreme Court ruled that “The Constitution of the United States was made by, and for the protection of, the people of the United States.”

In White v. Hart, (1872), the Supreme Court extended the charade by stating:

The National Constitution was, as its preamble recites, ordained and established by the people of the United States. It created not a confederacy of States, but a government of individuals.”

The decision in White v. Hart was based upon the precedent of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, (1816), where the Court ruled:

The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but . . . , as the preamble of the constitution declares, by ‘the people of the United States.’ . . . The constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in state institutions . . . .

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886), the Court ruled:

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. 

In Chae Chan Ping v. United States, (1889), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled,

While each state was originally recognized as sovereign unto itself, the Supreme Court held that the “United States of America” consists of only one sovereign nation with respect to foreign affairs and international relations; the individual states may not conduct foreign relations.” 

When the Supreme Court finds that it is politically convenient to re-establish the fantasy that the states, not “We the People,” created the Constitution, it reverts to the language of “federalism.” 

In re Debs, (1895), the Supreme Court reasserted the powers of Leviathan to compel obedience, by arguing that:

While, under the dual system which prevails with us, the powers of government are distributed between the State and the Nation, and while the latter is properly styled a government of enumerated powers, yet within the limits of such enumeration, it has all the attributes of sovereignty, and, in the exercise of those enumerated powers, acts directly upon the citizen, and not through the intermediate agency of the State. The entire strength of the nation may be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free exercise of all national powers and the security of all rights entrusted by the Constitution to its care. The strong arm of the national government may be put forth to brush away all obstructions to the freedom of interstate commerce or the transportation of the mails. If the emergency arises, the army of the Nation, and all its militia, are at the service of the Nation to compel obedience to its laws.

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court continued its assault on state sovereignty, using “We the People,” as the bludgeon:

The very opening words of the Constitution mark a radical departure: “We the People of the United States.” That language was at striking variance with the norm, for in earlier documents, including the 1778 treaty of alliance with France, the Articles of Confederation, and the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognizing American independence, the word “People” was not used, and the phrase “the United States” was followed immediately by a listing of the states (“viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” and so on down to Georgia).

The only purpose served by the text “We the People,” is to empower the Federal government over state governments. In United States v. Boyer, (1898), the Court ruled:

The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.

The charade of “We the People,” as the law givers continues in Carter v. Carter Coal Co., (1936):

The Constitution itself is in every real sense a law—the lawmakers being the people themselves, in whom under our system all political power and sovereignty primarily resides, and through whom such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess. The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. ‘We the People of the United States,’ it says, ‘do ordain and establish this Constitution.’ Ordain and establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with the dignity and character of law.

All of which is very logical and legally defensible, except for the fact that “We the People,” did not ordain and establish the Constitution. “We the People,” does not exist. The Constitution was established and ordained by a self-selected group of 37 elites.

In 1930, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in one of his dissents, re-stated George Mason’s objections to Madison’ Constitution. Holmes wrote:

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the States. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. Yet I can think of no narrower reason that seems to me to justify the present and the earlier decisions to which I have referred. Of course the words due process of law, if taken in their literal meaning, have no application to this case; and while it is too late to deny that they have been given a much more extended and artificial signification, still we ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the States, and should be slow to construe the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court’s own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the States may pass.

In United States v. Butler, (1936), the Court flip-flopped back to the principle of delegated state power in order to empower one of Roosevelt’s schemes that denied a farmer the right to grow wheat on his land for his own use.

From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.

The dirty little secret of “We the People,” is that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Articles of Confederation that could not have been fixed by some easy, simple modification.

As the natural rights populist Philanthropos argued, in 1787, that there was nothing seriously wrong with the Articles of Incorporation that Madison could not have easily fixed at the convention in Philadelphia.

Philanthropos wrote,

Our present constitution, (the Articles), with a few additional powers to Congress, seems better calculated to preserve the rights and defend the liberties of our citizens, than the one proposed, (by Madison), without proper amendments. Let us therefore, for once, show our judgment and solidity by continuing it, (the Articles), and prove the opinion to be erroneous, that levity and fickleness are not only the foibles of our tempers, but the reigning principles in these states.

But fixing the Articles was not the intent of Madison.

Madison intended to subjugate the states to a consolidated central government, and for that purpose Madison had to make believe that the states did not create the new government.

Madison came up with an ingenious deception that a mythical entity, “We the People,” created the new government. Madison left it up to his Federalist friends on the Supreme Court to do the dirty work of eviscerating the sovereignty of state governments.

Madison’s Premeditated Deception to Subordinate the States

Allegiance to the rule of law, noted Hamilton, depended upon a unique set of cultural values, to which citizens voluntarily adhere.

Madison’s institutional separation of powers and the “Supremacy Clause,” that eviscerated the states, were only the mechanisms of power. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, Madison deliberately failed to provide the required set of common cultural values, which would bind citizens to voluntary allegiance to the rule of law.

Today, Madison’s defect has allowed the country to be ideologically split between socialists, who want more socialism, and natural rights conservatives, who want more individual liberty. The defect can not be fixed because the document did not state the common cultural values that were contained in the Declaration.

“We the People,” and “Form a More Perfect Union,” are not a substitute for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

There is nothing, today, that binds citizens into a common nation with a common mission.

Madison knew exactly what he was doing, and he used great deception and guile to overthrow the Articles and subordinate the states to his central government.

Madison wrote in Federalist #45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Madison continued, “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Madison knew at the time he promised that the powers of the central government would be limited, was a lie. His statement was propaganda to allay fears of the citizens about centralized power. He knew that his logic of consolidation was based upon the idea that “We the People,” delegated power, which is why he argued, during the convention, that there was no need for a Bill of Rights.

During the Convention, the delegates were mostly set against the inclusion of a bill of rights in the new Constitution, defeating efforts by George Mason and Elbridge Gerry to consider one. Madison played both sides of the issue, saying in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, “I have always been in favor of a bill of rights… At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment.”

Five of the states that conditionally ratified the Constitution included a list of amendments that would be required in the new Constitution, if they were to extend unconditional approval.

After Madison first fought against the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, he switched sides. In his election campaign against James Monroe for the new U.S. House, vowed to fight for a bill of rights. He informed the Congress on May 4, 1789, that he intended to introduce the topic formally on May 25; but on May 4, the Congress was embroiled in a lengthy debate on import duties, and when May 25 rolled around, the debate continued. He rose again on June 8 to introduce the subject, but he was blocked, with other members noting that the Congress had more pressing matters to attend to.

In the ensuing debate in Congress, about the 10th Amendment, Madison modified the text to take out the word “expressly” because of the legal damage the word would do to the centralized power of the government.

Madison argued that the Articles of Confederation had been created by the 13 states, while this new constitution was created by “We the People.”

Madison wrote,

Should all the states adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen states of America, not through the intervention of the legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect the distinction between the existing and the proposed governments is very material. The existing system (The Articles), has been derived from the dependent derivative authority of the legislatures of the states; whereas, this is derived from the superior power of the people.

Madison cited North Carolina’s opposition to the Constitution as his motive for including the Bill of Rights. Madison wrote:

I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution.

Madison then invoked his deception that the Bill of Rights could be adopted without damaging the supreme power of the central government. His deception hinged on excluding the word “expressly” in the 10th Amendment.

Madison wrote,

I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it…(the amendments can be adopted) without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption

Madison’s opening argument for the amendments cites the authority of “We the People,” who granted the new government its powers. Madison placed the text for “We the People” in the Preamble.

Madison wrote,

First, That there be prefixed to the constitution, (in the Preamble) a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people…The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.

Madison then switches sides to argue that specific powers not delegated by either the states or “the people,” are discretionary powers of the government. The Bill of Rights could be added, argued Madison, because those rights did not interfere with the discretionary power of the government.

Madison wrote,

It (the central government) has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established.

In other words, the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was not significant for Madison as long as the new government was not bound by the word “expressly,” in the 10th Amendment. And, as long as the Necessary and Proper clause remained untouched, Madison had succeeded in creating a central government of unlimited power over the states.

Part 4. The Restoration of State Sovereignty In the Liberty States of America

Patrick Henry got the analysis of Madison’s scheme of “We the People,” exactly right in his arguments against Virginia’s adoption of the Constitution.

Henry wrote,

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask: Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one, great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all states.

Madison’s constitution was “one, great, consolidated national government,” as identified by Patrick Henry.

In just 6 short years, “We the People,” Federalists deployed a set of tyrannical acts, designed to eliminate their natural rights opponents. Jefferson was so alarmed at the tyranny that he wrote the Kentucky Resolutions to set the record straight that the states had delegated power to the Constitution, not “We the People.”

Madison switched sides and joined Jefferson in promoting the Kentucky Resolutions, as if he had never promoted “We the People.”

Jefferson wrote,

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party….each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. 

As was the case of the unresolved issue of slavery in Madison’s Constitution, the issue of “We the People,” was never resolved, both issues leading to the slaughter of 600,000 citizens in the Civil War. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution was not successful in re-establishing the sovereignty of states.

Just prior to the start of the Civil War, Jefferson Davis tried again to reassert the sovereignty of states in his resolution of 1860, in Congress.

Davis wrote,

Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories—which are the common possession of the United States—to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State.

The issue has never been resolved, leading 38 states, in 2010, to introduce resolutions in their state legislatures to reassert the principle of state sovereignty.

The unresolved issue has led to a fundamental, irresolvable conflict between socialists and natural rights conservatives over the future of the nation. The socialists, just like the earlier Federalists, want an all-powerful centralized government to impose their ideology of social welfare justice on all citizens.

The socialists point to the text “We the People,” as their justification for the legality of imposing their ideology. Like the charade of the 37 elites who wrote the Constitution, the socialists today claim that they are “We the People.”

The socialists are correct in their interpretation of “We the People.” Madison deliberately failed to include the set of common cultural values that would serve to bind citizens in a common national endeavor. The national mission could just as easily be the imposition of socialism as the imposition of freedom.

The cultural values of individual freedom are not compatible with the cultural values of socialism, and the two cultures can not peacefully co-exist within a sovereign national boundary.

The peaceful resolution of the intractable problem of socialism in America is to partition the nation into free and slave states, and to allow socialists to emigrate to the slave states.

The free states of the Liberty States of America would ratify a new constitution that would restore the priority of states over the national government, and extinguish Madison’s fraud of “We the People,” forever.

The restoration of state sovereignty in the Liberty States of America is accomplished with the following text of the new Constitituion:

Preamble:

We, the citizens of the Liberty States of America, establish this constitutional contract between our respective states and the National Government of the Liberty States of America.

We solemnly swear and affirm that we establish this contract to preserve and protect the natural and civil rights of citizens in each state, and to protect and defend the sovereignty of each state and the nation, from foreign and domestic threats.

Principles of Government:

  1. “…that the National Government is instituted to allow individual citizens to pursue individual happiness and to limit the arbitrary application of government power over the lives of individuals…”
  2. “…that individual citizens who freely give their consent to form a government through constitutional conventions are bound by the original contract until the operation of the government becomes destructive to the original intent of obtaining individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness…”
  3. “…that the citizens of each state have mechanisms in place in the constitutional contract to modify or abolish the governments that have been created that have become destructive to the ideals and goals under which the National Government is instituted, including the right to vote on remaining a member of the national government in a referendum to be held every 20 years from the date of admittance…”
  4. “…that the parties to the constitutional contract are individual citizens acting through their elected representatives at the state and national levels of government…”
  5. “…that the National Government is created by this union of states and the National Government shall never usurp the sovereign power or authority of the individual states or the sovereignty of the citizens in each state and that states have an inalienable right to call a convention of the states, without Congressional approval, to modify, amend, or abolish this Constitutional Contract.”

Clauses of Articles:

That all citizens in the respective states have a natural right to own and use weapons, and that the National Government shall make no laws which abridge the right of law-abiding citizens from owning, keeping and bearing weapons.

That citizens have a civil right of action against elected representatives or agents of the National Government, for violation of these natural rights, upon a presentation of a motion of grievance to a Grand Jury of 18 citizens, who shall hear the case and determine the outcome and set the penalties for the violation by a majority vote.

The a citizens Grand Jury in any State retains the right of initiating a citizen initiative on legislative proposals by a petition to the House of Representatives, which must respond to the petition within 30 days of receipt.

The House of Representatives shall represent the interests and rights of citizens in each state.

The Senate of the Liberty States of America shall be composed of one Senator elected from each state.

The Senators represent the collective corporate interests of the state.

The National Congress shall have the power to issue government bonds, and to borrow money on the credit of the Liberty States of America. All proposals to borrow money or issue debt shall occur once in the two year budget cycle, and all proposals to issue debt must be approved by 50% of the State legislatures of the Liberty States of America, no later than January 21 of the year of issuance.

The judicial power of the District and Supreme Court extends to cases arising under the Constitution of the Liberty States of America.

A decision by the Supreme Court becomes the supreme law of the land for issues pertaining exclusively to the Constitution of the Liberty States of America.

This Constitution, and the laws made by the National Congress, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the Liberty States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land for laws and cases exclusively pertaining to the National Government.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Senate of the National Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Upon a petition for admission from a state legislature, new states may be admitted by the Senate into this Union.

Conclusion.

When Thomas Burke wrote the Articles, he proposed that all sovereign power was in the states separately and that the federal government held enumerated powers. He wrote that each state “retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence…and any right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”

This text, by Burke, has caused 230 years of confusion about state’s rights because citizens assume that the states delegated powers to the federal government. The reason that 38 states are passing resolutions about state’s rights today is that those legislatures want to restore the original contract between the states and the central government.

When Madison overthrew the Articles with “We the People,” he did not allow a head-to-head vote between the Articles and his constitution. The only question on the ballot was yes-or-no on the “We the People,” constitution.

Ensuing generations of citizens did not realize that Madison had disconnected his constitution from Jefferson’s Declaration, and connected it to the British social class mixed government model, but without the British safeguards against tyranny.

The citizens did not figure out that Madison disconnected his constitution from the Articles, either.

Natural rights conservatives are confronting a constitutional crisis because the socialists despise the founding principles of this nation. There is nothing in Madison’s constitution that prohibits the socialists from implementing their “fundamental transformation” of America, because their interpretation of America as a racist, evil state is as valid as the natural rights conservative interpretation of American principles.

The best solution for restoration of states rights is to start over at the point of the Articles, and create a new constitution for the Liberty States of America that re-establishes the national government as a contract between the states and the delegated powers the states grant to the central government.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.