The President’s Responsibilities in Defending National Sovereignty

Laurie Thomas Vass, The Citizens Liberty Party

Part 1. Madison’s Virginia Constitution of 1776.

Many academic historians have expressed surprise that Madison failed to describe the mission of the president in his Virginia Plan, of 1787. His plan had only two provisions that addressed the topic of the Office of the President.

Madison had explained to George Washington, one month before the Constitutional Convention, that he had not been able to come up with the duties and mission of the president.

Madison wrote,

 

“I have scarcely ven­tured as yet to form my own opin­ion either of the manner in which the executive) ought to be consti­tuted or of the authorities with which it ought to be cloathed.”

 

The explanation for Madison’s uncertainty about the president’s role is that his British social class mixed government model did not have a president. The British system has a prime minister, appointed by the King.

 

Part of Madison’s intent in overthrowing the Articles of Confederation was that it did not contain a chief executive that functioned like the British prime minister, who administered the prerogatives of the King.

 

Madison was not interested in a federal confederation of states, he wanted a unified centralized national government that was lead by an authority figure. In Great Britain, the prime minister is accountable to the King, and Madison was not certain how the American President would function, in the absence of a King.

 

Madison relied on his earlier experience in writing the Virginia Constitution to write the new U. S. Constitution 11 years later.

 

When Madison wrote the Virginia Constitution, in 1776, he replicated parts of the British model, including the role of the King’s Privy Council, redefined as the Virginia Council of State. In Virginia’s model, the role of the prime minister in reporting to the King in Britain was replaced by Virginia’s plantation elite, who were appointed to serve as the new Privy Council.

 

In other words, in the Virginia model of government, the plantation elite were equivalent to the British nobility.

 

Throughout the Constitutional Convention, Madison never gave up on the idea that some form of Privy Council should act in the capacity of giving advice to the Office of the President.

 

Madison’s role model of President was Lord North who was Prime Minister of Great Britain from January, 1770 to March, 1782.

 

In December of 1766, the King appointed North to the Privy Council and by early 1767, he was called to attend Cabinet meetings. When Charles Townshend died in September of 1767, the King appointed Lord North the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

 

On January 31, 1770, King George appointed Lord North prime minister.

 

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of the United Kingdom government. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are collectively accountable for their policies and actions to the Monarch.

 

The office of prime minister is not established by any statute or constitutional document but exists only by long-established convention, which stipulates that the monarch must appoint as Prime Minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons.

 

The absence of a written British constitution compounded Madison’s uncertainty about the role and function of the President.

 

The relationships between the Prime Minister and the Sovereign, Parliament and Cabinet are defined largely by these unwritten conventions of the constitution. Many of the Prime Minister’s executive and legislative powers are actually royal prerogatives which are still formally vested in the Sovereign, who remains the head of state.

 

One of the reasons that Madison initially supported calling George Washington a King is because an American King would more nearly operate like the British King. One of the reasons Hamilton supported appointing the President for life was that a life-time appointment would more nearly replicate the British monarchy.

 

In the British system, the Parliament, beginning around 1687, effectively dispersed the powers of the Crown, entrusting its authority to responsible ministers who served on a newer version of the King’s Privy Council.

 

Prior to the start of the Revolution, the King’s Privy Council had the King’s authority to impose laws and veto laws in the American colonies.

 

Prior to the start of the Revolution, Virginia’s Council consisted of 12 of Virginia’s richest planters, who were appointed by the King’s Privy Council. The appointments to the Council were life-time appointments.

 

The Governor’s Council in Virginia gave advice to the Royal Governor in Virginia, on behalf of the King.

 

The Governor’s Council in Virginia served as justices in the Virginia judicial system.

 

The members of the Council held a dual position of power by serving in the legislature of Virginia. The members of the Council served as the Senate of Virginia, just like the House of Lords in England.

 

In other words, the Council was a combination of the executive, the Court, and the legislature in Virginia.

 

It was from was this combination of power that Madison realized that Virginia’s aristocracy had derived privilege and power from the British royalty, in the form of the King’s Council. In Madison’s mind, combining the power of the Council with the President would form a “more perfect union.”

 

The “more perfect union,” was not a union of states because “We, the People,” created the constitution. The more perfect union was a union of executive power with the power of the natural aristocracy to have unchallenged authority.

 

The power of the British House of Commons in separating the authority of the Council was a model for Madison in his system of checks and balances. As the British system evolved, the prime minister was also the Head of the British Treasury, and this dual position of power was attractive to Madison because the Prime Minister would have the power to compel the payment of government debt in gold and silver.

 

One of the reasons that Madison failed to address the role of political parties in his political model was that the British system depended on all political parties being loyal to the King. In Britain, there was only one political party, the King’s Party, and in Madison’s conception, the natural aristocracy would replicate the King’s Party.

 

In the American setting, the King’s Party would be the 37 Federalists who signed the Constitution. Madison did not address the issue of political parties because he assumed that America would have only one dominant party, called the Federalists.

 

In replicating the British system when he wrote the Virginia Constitution in 1776, Madison eliminated the right to vote for common citizens. Only the natural aristocracy possessed the exclusive power to vote in his constitution, a feature of politics that lasted in Virginia until 1820.

Part 2. Madison’s Virginia Plan of 1787 For the Office of President

 

Madison stated in Federalist # 40 that the constitutional convention of 1787 created a mixed government.

 

In Madison’s conception, the British mixed government was comprised of three parties, the one, the few, and the many. In the British context, the one was the King, the few were the nobility, and the many were the common citizens

 

In Madison’s American version of mixed government, the one was the President, the few were the natural aristocracy, who served in the Senate, and the many the common citizens, who elected representatives for the House of Representatives.

 

Madison explained, in Federalist #47, how his rendition of mixed government would operate. Madison wrote,

 

In the very Constitution to which it is prefixed, a partial mixture of powers has been admitted. The executive magistrate has a qualified negative on the legislative body, and the Senate, which is a part of the legislature, is a court of impeachment for members both of the executive and judiciary departments. The members of the judiciary department, again, are appointable by the executive department, and removable by the same authority on the address of the two legislative branches.

 

While Madison cited Montesquieu as his primary source of authority for his ideas on mixed government, he also cited the Greek philosopher Polybius.

 

Madison referred to Polybius in Federalist #63.

 

Polybius outlined three simple forms of constitution–each categorized according to the number of its ruling body: monarchy (rule by the one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and democracy (rule by the many).

 

In the Polybius theory, a type of historical determinism cycles each form of government through predictable phases. Each form of government degenerates, over time, into three forms of predictable corruption. The monarchy degenerates into tyranny, the aristocracy degenerates into corrupt oligarchy, and democracy ends up in mob-rule.

 

In his theory, Polybius explained that each form of government was replaced by the next form, in a continuous cycle that repeated itself.

 

It was this historical dynamic that Madison used as his logic in forming the constitution, and formed the basis of the powers of the Office of the President.

 

Madison’s first resolution about the President in his Virginia Plan stated:

 

Resolved. that a national Executive be instituted to consist of a single person. to be chosen by the National Legislature. for the term of seven years. with power to carry into execution the national Laws, to appoint to Offices in cases not otherwise provided for to be ineligible a second time, and to be removable on impeachment and conviction of mal practice or neglect of duty. to receive a fixed stipend, by which he may be compensated for the devotion of his time to public service to be paid out of the national Treasury.

 

Madison defined the civil rules of procedure of electing the President, without describing the mission of the President. His main idea was that the President should have a shared veto power with the Council of Revision, composed of the executive and members of the federal judiciary.

 

As he argued during the Convention, his form of government called for a type of passive  administrator executive that shared power with a Council of State.

 

At the Convention, Madison stated,

 

Instead, therefore, of contenting ourselves with laying down the theory in the Constitution, that each department ought to be separate and distinct, it was proposed to add a defensive power to each, which should maintain the theory in practice. In so doing, we did not blend the departments together. We erected effectual barriers for keeping them separate. The most regular example of this theory was in the British Constitution. Yet it was not only the practice there to admit the Judges to a seat in the Legislature, and in the Executive Councils, and submit to their previous examination all laws of a certain description, but it was a part of their Constitution that the Executive might negative any law whatever; a part of their Constitution which had been universally regarded as calculated for the preservation of the whole.

 

The passive administrative President was an essential feature of Madison’s government because he anticipated that special interest factions were the only parties to the government. He deliberately left out how the President would defend the national public purpose in his national government.

 

Rather, Madison’s rules of separation of power were the instruments to balance and check factional political power in order to insure that social elites, (the few), who made important decisions on behalf of all society, were insulated from the democratic tyranny that could be imposed by the majority of people, (the many).

 

Madison wrote,

 

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate,

 

The two special financial interests that Madison envisioned competing against each other, in a national government, did not require an active President. Consequently, Madison did not include any language about the mission of the President, other than administering the laws.

 

Madison’s logic in omitting the mission of the President was based in his assumption that the natural aristocracy possessed virtue, and would make beneficial decisions on behalf of all citizens.

 

In Federalist #51, Madison writes “among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good. . .we are to presume that in general they (the few), will be somewhat distinguished also by those qualities which entitle them to it, and which promise a sincere and scrupulous regard to the nature of their engagements.

Madison wrote,

 

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self–appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

 

For Madison, the purpose of government is not to provide a mechanism of rights claims and reciprocation of trust among citizens.

 

Rather, Madison’s rules were the instruments to balance and check factional political power in order to insure that social elites, the natural leaders, who made important decisions on behalf of all society, were insulated from the tyranny that could be imposed by the people, through democratic procedures.

 

As Madison stated, “the chief object of government is to regulate “these various and interfering interests.”

 

As it turned out, 230 years later, the omission of the mission of the Office of President lead to a series of rogue Presidents, and ultimately to the centralized elite tyranny, called the swamp. A constitution that is silent on the mission of the President acts to empower an unstated grant of power for a rogue President to take the law into his own hands.

 

Following the cycle of mixed government in Polybius, Madison’s constitution is an abject failure because the nobility phase of his mixed government ended in corrupt tyranny, and Madison never had the confidence in the citizens to allow for democracy.

 

In other words, Madison’s rules had the effect of truncating the next phase of democracy in the mixed government model of Polybius.

Part 3. The Arguments About the President During the Convention

 

The arguments about the power of the President took place within the much bigger context about a national consolidated government versus a federal confederation of states.

 

When the delegates from the southern states arrived in Philadelphia, and figured out Madison’s intent in eradicating the Articles of Confederation, they asked a series of questions about Madison’s purpose. Those questions later influenced the debate about the Office of President.

 

From Madison’s notes taken during the debates,

 

Mr. PINCKNEY wished to know of Mr. Randolph whether he meant to abolish the state governments altogether. Mr. Randolph replied that he meant by these general propositions merely to introduce the particular ones which explained the outlines of the system he had in view.

 

Gen. PINCKNEY expressed a doubt whether the act of [the Confederation] Congress recommending the Convention, or the commissions of the deputies to it could authorize a discussion of a system founded on different principles from the federal constitution.

 

Mr. GERRY seemed to entertain the same doubt.

 

Mr. DICKINSON The division of the country into distinct States formed the other principal source of stability. This division ought therefore to be maintained, and considerable powers to be left with the States. This was the ground of his consolation for the future fate of his country. Without this, and in case of a consolidation of the States into one great republic, we might read its fate in the history of smaller ones. A limited monarchy he considered as one of the best governments in the world. It was not certain that the same blessings were derivable from any other form. It was certain that equal blessings had never yet been derived from any of the republican forms

 

Soon after the delegates realized that “We, the People,” and not the states, wrote their new constitution, they limited their attention on the Office of the President to two primary issues:

Should the Office of President be one person, three people, or a mix of the President and a new form of Privy Council, who advised the President.

Should the Office of President be an equal co-branch, with the same authority as the Congress and Supreme Court, or should the President be more like an administrator of laws passed by Congress.

 

Solving those two primary issues depended on how the President was selected, or elected, and the extent of leadership authority the President would have over creating the policies of the new nation.

 

Both of these issues were complicated by the presence of George Washington, the presumptive new president, or the King, as the delegates would decide.

 

From Madison’s notes:

 

Mr. SHERMAN was against enabling any one man to stop the will of the whole. No man could be found so far above all the rest in wisdom. The ideal executive was nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the Legislature into effect.

 

Mr. WILSON preferred a single magistrate, as giving most energy, dispatch, and responsibility to the office.

 

Mr. GERRY favored the policy of annexing a council to the executive in order to give weight and inspire confidence.

 

Mr. RANDOLPH strenuously opposed a unity in the executive magistracy. He regarded it as the fetus of monarchy…. He could not see why the great requisites for the executive department—vigor, dispatch, and responsibility—could not be found in three men as well as in one man. The executive ought to be independent. It ought, therefore, in order to support its independence, to consist of more than one.

 

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Some check being necessary on the Legislature, the question is, in what hands it should be lodged? On one side, it was contended, that the Executive alone ought to exercise it. He did not think that an Executive appointed for six years, and impeachable whilst in office, would be a very effectual check. On the other side, it was urged, that he ought to be reinforced by the Judiciary department. Against this it was objected, that expositors of laws ought to have no hand in making them, and arguments in favor of this had been drawn from England. What weight was due to them might be easily determined by an attention to facts. The truth was, that the Judges in England had a great share in the legislation. They are consulted in difficult and doubtful cases. They may be, and some of them are, members of the Legislature. They are, or may be, members of the Privy Council; and can there advise the Executive, as they will do with us if the motion succeeds. The influence the English Judges may have, in the latter capacity, in strengthening the Executive check, cannot be ascertained, as the King, by his influence, in a manner dictates the laws

 

Mr. MADISON. The objection against a union of the Judiciary and Executive branches, in the revision of the laws, had either no foundation, or was not carried far enough. If such a union was an improper mixture of powers, or such a Judiciary check on the laws was inconsistent with the theory of a free constitution, it was equally so to admit the Executive to any participation in the making of laws; and the revisionary plan ought to be discarded altogether.

 

For most of June and July, the delegates went around and around these same issues, without resolution.

 

During those two months, the delegates voted more than 60 times just on the method of electing the president.  They could not make progress on the method of elections until they solved the bigger issue of what powers the president would have. They could not solve the issue of the powers of the president until they solved the issue of whether the president was one person, or a Council.

 

At the beginning of August, as a way of trying to resolve the issues about the Office of President, Morris and Pinckney drafted a resolution that they hoped would capture the majority sentiment of the delegates.

 

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, seconded by Mr. PINCKNEY, submitted the following propositions which were, in like manner, referred to the Committee of Detail:

 

“To assist the President in conducting the public affairs, there shall be a Council of State composed of the following officers:

 

“1. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall from time to time recommend such alterations of and additions to the laws of the United States, as may in his opinion be necessary to the due administration of justice; and such as may promote useful learning and inculcate sound morality throughout the Union. He shall be President of the Council, in the absence of the President.

 

“2. The Secretary of Domestic Affairs, who shall be appointed by the President, and hold his office during pleasure. It shall be his duty to attend to matters of general police, the state of agriculture and manufactures, the opening of roads and navigations, and the facilitating communications through the United States; and he shall from time to time recommend such measures and establishments as may tend to promote those objects.

 

“3. The Secretary of Commerce and Finance, who shall also be appointed by the President during pleasure. It shall be his duty to superintend all matters relating to the public finances, to prepare and report plans of revenue and for the regulation of expenditures, and also to recommend such things as may, in his judgment, promote the commercial interests of the United States.

 

“4. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, who shall also be appointed by the President during pleasure. It shall be his duty to correspond with all foreign ministers, prepare plans of treaties, and consider such as may be transmitted from abroad; and generally to attend to the interests of the United States in their connexions with foreign powers.

 

“5. The Secretary of War, who shall also be appointed by the President during pleasure. It shall be his duty to superintend every thing relating to the War department, such as the raising and equipping of troops, the care of military stores, public fortifications, arsenals, and the like; also in time of war to prepare and recommend plans of offence and defence.

 

“6. The Secretary of the Marine, who shall also be appointed during pleasure. It shall be his duty to superintend every thing relating to the Marine department, the public ships, dock-yards, naval stores, and arsenals; also in the time of war to prepare and recommend plans of offence and defence.

 

“7. The President shall also appoint a Secretary of State, to hold his office during pleasure; who shall be Secretary to the Council of State, and also public Secretary to the President. It shall be his duty to prepare all public despatches from the President, which he shall countersign. The President may from time to time submit any matter to the discussion of the Council of State, and he may require the written opinions of any one or more of the members. But he shall in all cases exercise his own judgment, and either conform to such opinions, or not, as he may think proper; and every officer above mentioned shall be responsible for his opinion, on the affairs relating to his particular department.

 

“8. Each of the officers above mentioned shall be liable to impeachment and removal from office, for neglect of duty, malversation, or corruption.”

 

The Committee of Detail was given its task on July 24. The resolution stayed bottled up in the Committee of Detail until the end of August. The job of the Committee of Detail was to add the final details to the resolution, before the adjournment of the Convention, tentatively set for September 13.

 

The Committee of Detail decided that the title for the president should not be “king.” The other issues regarding the mission of the president and the rules for electing the president were left unsolved, to the very last minute.

 

As he did in failing to address the issue of the morality of slavery, but adding rules and procedures for counting slaves, Madison also failed to explain the mission and purpose of the Office of President. The convention delegates spent their final days in Philadelphia arguing about how the President should be elected and the power of the President, but not addressing the bigger issue of the mission of the President to protect the natural rights of citizens.

 

The debate in the final 11 days of the Convention empowered the Office without describing what acted as a barrier to a rogue President taking the law into his own hands. Both proponents and opponents to the Constitution understood the danger of corruption and cabal of a rogue President.

 

The opponents to Madison’s Virginia plan very clearly argued that the Office of President that Madison was creating was an unchecked power that would end in the tyranny of a rogue president. Most of the authority for selecting the President was vested in the unelected Senate.

 

The Senate was comprised of a very tiny minority of America’s natural aristocracy, and Madison’s plan empowered the Senate make decisions about the election of the President.

 

The language the opponents used to describe the tyranny was “creating an aristocracy.”

 

From Madison’s notes:

 

September 4.

 

Mr. GOVr. MORRIS said,

 

As the Electors would vote at the same time throughout the U. S. and at so great a distance from

each other, the great evil of cabal was avoided. It would be impossible also to corrupt them. A conclusive reason for making the Senate instead of the Supreme Court the Judge of impeachment, was that the latter was to try the President after the trial of the impeachment.

 

Mr. PINKNEY stated as objections to the mode of election.

 

it threw the whole appointment in fact into the hands of the Senate. 2. The Electors will be strangers to the several candidates and of course unable to decide on their comparative merits. 3. It makes the Executive reeligible which will endanger the public liberty. 4. It makes the same body of men which will in fact elect the President his Judges in case of an impeachment.

 

 

September 5.

 

Mr. RUTLIDGE was much opposed to the plan reported by the Committee.

 

It would throw the whole power into the Senate. He was also against are-eligibility. He moved to postpone the Report under consideration & take up the original plan of appointment by the Legislature, to wit. “He shall be elected by joint ballot by the Legislature to which election a majority of the votes of the members present shall be required: He shall hold his office during the term of seven years; but shall not be elected a second time.”

 

Col. MASON admitted that there were objections to an appointment by the Legislature as originally planned.

 

He had not yet made up his mind, but would state his objections to the mode proposed by the Committee. It puts the appointment in fact into the hands of the Senate, as it will rarely happen that a majority of the whole votes will fall on anyone candidate: and as the Existing President will always be one of the 5 highest, his reappointment will of course depend on the Senate. 2. Considering the powers of the President & those of the Senate, if a coalition should be established between these two branches, they will be      able to subvert the Constitution — The great objection with him would be removed by depriving the Senate of the eventual election. He accordingly moved to strike out the words “if such number be a majority of that of the electors.”

 

Mr. RANDOLPH. We have in some revolutions of this plan made a bold stroke for Monarchy.

 

We are now doing the same for an aristocracy. He dwelt on the tendency of such an influence in the Senate over the election of the President in addition to its other powers, to convert that body into a real & dangerous Aristocracy.

 

Col: MASON. As the mode of appointment is now regulated, he could not forbear expressing his opinion that it is utterly inadmissible.

 

He would prefer the Government of Prussia to one which will put all power into the hands of seven or eight men, and fix an Aristocracy worse than    absolute monarchy. The words “and of their giving their votes” being inserted on motion for that purpose, after the words “The Legislature may determine the time of chusing and assembling the electors.”

 

September  6.

 

Mr. WILSON said that he had weighed carefully the report of the Committee for remodelling the constitution of the Executive;

 

and on combining it with other parts of the plan, he was obliged to consider the whole as having a dangerous tendency to aristocracy; as throwing a dangerous power into the hands of the Senate. They will have in fact, the appointment of the President, and through his dependence on them, the virtual appointment to offices; among others the offices of the Judiciary Department. They are to make Treaties; and they are to try all impeachments. In allowing them thus to make the Executive & Judiciary

appointments, to be the Court of impeachments, and to make Treaties which are to be laws of the land, the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers are all blended in one branch of the Government.

 

 

 

 

 

September 7.

 

Col: MASON said that in rejecting a Council to the President we were about to try an experiment on which the most despotic Governments had never ventured. The Grand Signor himself had his Divan. He moved to postpone the consideration of the clause in order to take up the following:

 

“That it be an instruction to the Committee of the States to prepare a clause or clauses for establishing an Executive Council, as a Council of State, for the President of the U. States, to consist of six members,

two of which from the Eastern, two from the middle, and two from the Southern States, with a Rotation and duration of office similar to those of the Senate; such Council to be appointed by the Legislature or by the Senate.”

 

September 8.

 

A Committee was then appointed by Ballot to revise the stile of and arrange the articles which had been agreed to by the House. The committee consisted of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Govr. Morris, Mr.

Madison and Mr. King.

 

September 15.

 

Col: MASON 2ded. & followed Mr. Randolph in animadversions on the dangerous power and structure of the Government, concluding that it would end either in monarchy, or a tyrannical aristocracy; which, he was in doubt, but one or other, he was sure. This Constitution had been formed without the knowledge or idea of the people. A second Convention will know more of the sense of the people, and be able to provide a system more consonant to it. It was improper to say to the people, take this or nothing.

 

Mason’s language for describing Madison’s scheme, on September 15, “take this or nothing,” went directly to the heart of Madison’s duplicity in creating his constitution. Madison cleverly presented only one alternative. The Articles of Confederation were not on the ballot.

 

The entire body of delegates, prior to the appointment of the Committee on Style, on September 8, had not reached agreement on the powers of the Presidency. The Committee on Style, appointed 3 days before the Convention ended, never released the final clauses of Article II, on the Presidency to the delegates, before they voted on them, on September 17.

 

Just like the dishonest act of Morris in secretly neutering the states by inserting “We the People,” and “More perfect union,” without showing the preamble to the delegates, the Committee on Style text of Article II had not been seen or approved by the delegates.

 

The committee’s charge was merely to put the Constitution into polished language. Morris left the vesting clause for the executive unaltered (“the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”), but he changed the vesting clause for Congress to read: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” (emphasis added).

 

Rogue presidents could later claim that the different phrasing of the two branches’ vesting clauses implies that there are executive powers beyond those “herein granted.” As Richard Nixon would explain, after his resignation, “when a President does it, it is not illegal.”

 

In a contemporary example of Aristotle’s definition of corruption, Hillary is beyond the rule of law. Obama is beyond the rule of law. In Madison’s conception of rights, laws made by the elites apply to the non-elites.

 

The delegates never addressed the end goals to which the power of the president would be directed.

 

Mason and Wilson were exactly right in their prediction that Madison’s plan would create an aristocratic tyranny of rogue presidents. Both delegates saw through Madison’s sham “separation of powers and checks and balances.”

 

The obvious flaw in Madison’s separation of powers was that when the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are from the same political party, there is a unified, consolidated central power that does not derive its just powers from the consent of the governed. There is no separation of power because all the branches think and act alike, unified by a common ideology.

 

The rogue President bends the law to his own political agenda, the Congress, of the same political party, then fails to restrain the rogue President, and the Supreme Court, of the same political party, rules that the President’s actions are constitutional.

 

Mason stated that “Considering the powers of the President & those of the Senate, if a coalition should be established between these two branches, they will be able to subvert the Constitution.” The obvious coalition was a political coalition in the three branches that was unified by political ideology.

 

Wilson added, “They are to make Treaties; and they are to try all impeachments. In allowing them thus to make the Executive & Judiciary appointments, to be the Court of impeachments, and to make Treaties which are to be laws of the land, the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers are all blended in one branch of the  Government.”

 

On September 17, the last day of the Convention, Madison played “We, the people” for the first time against the natural rights populists who supported sovereignty of the states.

 

Mason and Elbridge Gerry had moved for a committee to prepare a bill of rights to attach to Madison’s document.

 

The motion was defeated by a vote of 10 to 0. By September 17, only 10 states were in attendance. Many of the delegates in opposition to “We, the people” had already left the Convention, which is why only 37 of the initial 55 “We, the people” delegates signed the document, on September 17.

 

In the debate about the Bill of Rights, Madison stuck to his earlier arguments that a Bill of Rights was not needed because the state constitutions contained their own Bill of rights.

 

Two years later, he later changed his mind, and said that the Bill of Rights was needed.

 

In speaking against Mason’s motion, Roger Sherman stated that the reason that a Bill of Rights was not needed, was that “the State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution and, being in force, are sufficient.”

 

But, of course, it was not the states that created the Constitution, it was “We, the people.” “We, the people,” was a national consolidated government that overrode the constitutions of the states, because “We, the people” was the supreme law of the land.

 

The rights in each state constitution had no significance in the national government. As Gouverneur Morris stated, on July 23, “The Ellsworth amendment erroneously supposes that we are proceeding on the basis of the Confederation. This Convention is unknown to the Confederation.”

 

For many decades, after the tenure of Andrew Jackson, the Presidents were more passive, and acted as administrators. This leadership style provided political stability for the nation because it was suited to Madison’s Virginia Plan.

 

Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt, the stability of the American political system eroded because Roosevelt was never constrained in his socialist mission by the other branches of government. At least Roosevelt believed in the sovereignty of the nation.

 

The series of rogue presidents, beginning with Lyndon Johnson, put the nation on the path to a centralized tyranny that was both disconnected from the consent of the governed, and shared no allegiance to the sovereignty of the United States.

 

In 2008, when Obama converted the Democrat Party into a global socialist party, the last vestiges of Madison’s British two social class system evaporated. No political party represented the financial interests of the working class, and both parties collaborated on converting the nation to a globalist nation, one among many.

 

President Adam’s explanation was exactly right. There was no public purpose of protecting the natural rights of citizens in Madison’s constitution.

 

“The reason,” noted Adams, “is that we have no Americans in America. The Nationalists have been no more Americans than the anties…Jefferson had a party. Hamilton had a party, but the commonwealth had none.”

 

Part 4. Madison’s Legacy of Rogue Presidents and Deep State Tyranny

 

Patrick Henry was another natural rights patriot who saw through Madison’s ruse about checks and balances.

 

During Virginia’s ratifying convention, Henry wrote:

 

Tell me not of checks on paper; but tell me of checks founded on self-love.” The people’s liberties are less safe under the proposed Constitution than under the British monarchy, for there at least the hereditary nobility have a stake in maintaining a balance between king and Commons; their continued existence depends on it. What corresponding incentives did the American analogues possess?

 

In the same Virginia convention, James Monroe cited the differences between the authentic British social class system and the truncated version that Madison created.

 

Monroe wrote:

 

The English constitution is based upon social orders which have a repellent quality which enabled it to preserve itself from being destroyed by the other. The American division of power had no such basis and, indeed, no such intention. There are no real checks in the Constitution that would prevent a coalition of the branches of government and encroachments on the rights of the people.

 

Mason wrote, “We are not indeed constituting a British Government, but a more dangerous monarchy, an elective one.”

 

Madison played both sides of the issue. Sometimes, he acted like a patriot that was concerned about natural rights, and sometimes he was a Federalist, intent on creating a centralized government.

 

 

 

In 1785, Madison was in his natural rights mode, and wrote,

 

The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be universally maintained but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves.

 

In Federalist #39, he was still using the states rights side of the debate as a ruse to win support for his consolidated centralized scheme.

 

Madison wrote,

 

The ratification of the Constitution was the assent of the people,  but not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong. The ratification of the Constitution will not be a national act, but a federal act.

 

Madison’s text is a blatant misrepresentation of the elements of his Constitution. In 1787, Madison switched to his federalist mode. He was well aware that a government that did not protect the natural rights of citizens would end up with citizens being slaves to the government.

 

Madison then proceeded to draft his Virginia Plan that ended up making citizens slaves to the deep state.

 

Madison deliberately omitted the goal of his constitution, and deliberately failed to address the role of political parties in unifying all three branches of government.

 

By the time of the Kentucky Resolutions, Madison could clearly see the drift towards centralized tyranny. By the time of the election of 1800, secret meetings of elites had begun selecting their party’s presidential candidate. The newly elected President owed his allegiance to the elites who selected him, and to the political party apparatus that won the vote.

 

This closed, secret system of selecting candidates was called “King Caucus.” The system made the President dependent on the political party.

 

As long as one party represented the interests of common citizens, and the other party represented the natural aristocracy, Madison’s version of the British two-class, two-party, first-past-the-post election system, provided a modicum of political stability.

 

John Adams predicted the outcome by noting that the constitutional rules would divide the nation into two groups, creditors and debtors. The purpose of Madison’s constitution was to “…settle wealth and power upon a minority. It will be accomplished by a national debt, paper corporations, and offices, civil and military. These will condense king, lords and commons, a monied faction and an armed faction in one interest.”

 

Beginning with President Johnson, presidents began using the CIA and FBI to undermine foreign governments, engage in secret wars and conduct espionage on U. S. citizens.

 

Following the prediction of President Adams, the deployment of the CIA was in the service of the wealthy elite.

 

President Johnson outlined his “Mann Doctrine,” in 1964, that the U. S. foreign policy of overthrowing foreign democracies was based upon protecting the financial interests of U. S. corporations.

 

Johnson then proceeded to use the CIA to overthrow the elected governments in Brazil, (1964), Dominican Republic, (1965), Greece, (1965), Indonesia, (1965), and overtly lied to the American citizens about the illegal war in Viet Nam.

 

Following Johnson, President Nixon used the CIA to overthrow the government of Chile, (1970), and began the coup in Argentina, (1976).

 

In 1964, in the ramp up to the current deep state espionage on U. S. citizens, Johnson unleashed the FBI and the CIA on both black natural rights advocates and anti-war activists. Johnson thought both political movements were inspired by the same communist forces he was at war with in Viet Nam.

 

Johnson’s use of the Office of President to spy on U. S. citizens was not prohibited by Madison’s constitution, and the majority Democrats in Congress did not use their power to rein in the rogue President.

 

Nixon conducted a secret war in Cambodia, and bombed parts of Laos and Viet Nam into oblivion. Congress did nothing to rein in the rogue President.

 

After Nixon conducted his illegal espionage on the Democrats, and had resigned, President Ford pardoned him, in a move consistent with how the earlier Federalists protected each other, and how today’s elites protect their illicit privileges.

 

Madison’s constitution allows the President the power to grant pardons, without any rules on the justification for the pardon.

 

Jimmy Carter joined the Tri-Lateral Commission in 1976, a secret global cabal of wealthy elites, whose mission is to coordinate bank monetary policy and financial transactions around the world. The Tri-Lateral Commission marks the beginning of the shift in allegiance of the elites in the swamp from American sovereignty to a global governmental sovereignty.

 

In 1981, Reagan conducted an illegal war in El Salvador, to overthrow the democratically-elected government. Reagan’s Contras were successful in killing 70,000 civilians.

 

Reagan placed a U. S. Navy blockade of Nicaragua, and mined their harbors.

 

Congress did nothing.

 

Reagan ignored Congress about funding the Contras, and began using arms sales to Iran to fund his war in Nicaragua. When he was caught lying to the American people, and violating the law, Congress did nothing to rein in the rogue President.

 

In 1983, Reagan invaded Grenada to overthrow the government there.

 

Reagan conducted an illegal, secret war in Afganistan, and funded Muslim terrorist groups. One of those terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, eventually used the resources provided by Reagan to bomb New York in 2001.

 

In 1989, Bush sent 120,000 U. S. troops to invade Panama, to overthrow the dictatorship of Noreiga. The ostensible, public lie used by Bush to justify the invasion was “war on drugs.” His actions were not authorized by Congress and violated the 1973 War Powers Act.

 

Congress did nothing.

 

In the first explicit reference to the deep state globalist ambitions of the Republican Party, Bush proclaimed a “New World Order,” in 1991. The new world order was based upon the military power of the U. S. to protect the financial interests of global corporations.

 

In 2003, Bush sent 250,000 U. S. troops to invade Iraq. Opponents of the invasion called it “War for Oil.” More accurately, it could have been called New World Order war because Bush had laid out plans to invade 5 other countries.

 

The Bush “neo-con” cabal that managed the new world order was the beginning of today’s deep state elites.

 

In 2002, as a part of the deep state management, Bush ordered the NSA to begin spying on U. S. citizens, and keeping computer records of suspected enemies of the new world order. Bush justified his espionage on U. S. citizens by stating that he had absolute moral clarity to engage in illegal acts.

 

There is nothing in Madison’s Constitution that reins in a rogue president, like Bush, from committing illegal acts. As Nixon correctly observed, “when the President does it, it is not illegal.”

 

There is nothing in Madison’s checks and balances that limits the President because his acts are sanctioned by a political party, not by the Constitution. When the 3 branches are all under one party, there are no institutional  checks and balances against tyranny.

 

The two historical forces that perpetuated the current deep state were the use of U. S. military power to overthrow foreign governments, and the use of the CIA and FBI to punish domestic citizens who opposed the rogue presidents.

 

Beginning around 2005, the corporate globalist ambitions of the Republicans began to merge in alliance with the global socialist ambitions of the Democrats. Beginning with Obama, the two political parties began colluding on the implementation and management of the new world order.

 

Their collusion was facilitated by the unelected agents in the deep state.

 

Obama inherited the deep state apparatus created by Bush, and extended its effectiveness in undermining the sovereignty of the nation and the natural rights of citizens.

 

In the absence of explicitly stating that liberty was the end goal for government, Madison’s constitution did not yoke his assumption about the “virtue” of the natural aristocracy to the social cultural values that bind citizens together in the patriotic common cause of liberty.

 

In contrast to Madison’s philosophically vacuous “more perfect union,” in Obama’s socialism, Marxian class war, socialist ideology, and white privilege within the capitalist legal system, constitute the context for creating a “more perfect union.”

 

Obama’s job, as President, was to redistribute the income that existed from the globalist economy to correct his idea of the unfair distribution of wealth.

 

His allegiance to the American rule of law is subordinated to his higher allegiance to his religion of global socialism. Obama has no allegiance to the rule of law because he despises the principles upon which the American government are based.

 

In Obama’s logic, deploying the FBI and CIA, as political weapons to advance global socialism is part of the socialist definition of the constitutional public purpose. The deployment of the FBI was intended, by Obama, to force obedience to the rule of law in socialism, in strict adherence to what Obama determined it to be, at any moment in time.

 

In their logic, the socialists, like Obama, are absolutely certain that their policies lead to greater social welfare  and social justice, than the individualistic logic of the natural rights republic. Like Bush, Obama had absolute moral certainty about the benefits of global socialism.

 

There is nothing in Madison’s constitution that prohibits a rogue president from pursuing the socialist ideology.

 

Obama knew that once citizens give up their natural rights in exchange for government welfare, the socialists would be able control the citizens for life, by controlling the ideology of socialist class hatred.

 

The socialists in Obama’s lawless regime, across all branches of government, were united by this common ideology. This type of unified ideological interest in the 3 branches of government is contrary to Madison’s principles of separation of power.

 

Obama’s regime was organized, state-sanctioned lawlessness, designed to impose a socialist dictatorship. Obama used the deep-state apparatus, created by Bush to conduct a series of criminal acts.

 

  • April 2009: Obama leaks the unmasked name of Congresswoman Jane Harmon to the press. According to news reports, the Bush administration NSA incidentally recorded and saved Harmon’s phone conversations with pro-Israel lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage.
  • 2010: The IRS secretly begins “targeting” conservative groups that are seeking nonprofit tax-exempt status, by singling out ones that have “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names.
  • Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning begins illegally leaks classified information to WikiLeaks revealing, among other matters, that the U.S. is extensively spying on the United Nations.
  • Obama Attorney General Eric Holder renews a Bush-era subpoena of New York Times reporter James Risen in a leak investigation.
  • Obama administration pursues espionage charges against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake. The judge called the government’s conduct in the case “unconscionable.”
  • May 28, 2010: The government secretly applies for a warrant to obtain Google email information of Fox News reporter James Rosen in a leak investigation, without telling Rosen.
  • Summer 2016: The FBI reportedly obtains a secret FISA court order to monitor communications of Trump adviser Carter Page, convincing a judge there’s probable cause to believe Page is acting as a Russian agent.
  • CNN later reports that the Obama Justice Department wiretapped Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort before the 2016 election over Russia ties, and continued it through the early part of 2017.
  • Fall 2016: Trump opponents “shop” to reporters a political opposition research “dossier” alleging Trump is guilty of various inappropriate acts regarding Russia. A copy of the report is provided to the FBI.
  • September 26, 2016: It’s not publicly known at the time, but the government makes a proposal to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) court to allow the National Counter Terrorism Center to access “unmasked” intel on Americans acquired by the FBI and NSA.
  • October 26, 2016: At a closed-door hearing before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Obama administration disclosed that it had been violating surveillance laws. It disclosed that more than 5 percent of its searches of the NSA’s database violated the law.
  • November 2016-January 2017: News reports claim Rice’s interest in the NSA materials accelerates after President Trump’s election through his January inauguration. Surveillance reportedly included Trump transition figures and foreign officials discussing a Trump administration.
  • December 2016: FBI secretly monitors and records communications between the Russian ambassador, and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. After Trump’s election, Obama officials take steps to ensure certain intelligence gathered regarding Trump associates is “spread across the government.” One Obama official would later say it’s because they were afraid once Trump officials “found out how we knew what we knew,” the intelligence would be destroyed.”
  • December 15, 2016: National Security Adviser Susan Rice acknowledged that the Obama administration spied on Trump officials in Trump Tower, but claimed it was incidental to the administration’s spying on the foreign leader, the UAE crown prince. Rice admitted to “unmasking” the names of the Trump officials who met with the crown prince, saying it was important to know who they were, although the identities of Americans are supposed to be strictly protected.
  • January 10, 2017: The socialist propaganda media reports on the veracity of the Trump “dossier” as authentic.
  • January 12, 2017: The Obama administration finalizes new rules allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to spread certain intelligence to 16 other U.S. intel agencies without the normal privacy protections.
  • February 2, 2017: The media reports that five information technology (IT) computer professionals employed by Democrats in the House of Representatives are under criminal investigation for allegedly “accessing House IT systems without lawmakers’ knowledge.” The suspects include three brothers, “who managed office information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other lawmakers.”
  • February 9, 2017: News of the FBI recordings of Lt. Gen. Flynn speaking with Russia’s ambassador is leaked to the press. The New York Times and the Washington Post report that Flynn’s dialogue was captured on wiretaps.
  • March 20, 2017: At a hearing, lead House Intelligence Committee Democrat Adam Schiff places Trump adviser Carter Page at the center of a theoretical alleged collusion with Russia. Schiff’s statement is the Democrat’s coordinated attempt with the socialist media to establish public justification for the Obama administration intel community’s controversial surveillance of the Trump adviser during the 2016 political campaign.

 

The espionage Obama and Rice conducted during the Trump transition was different than the routine criminal spying, before the inauguration. Prior to the election, Obama used the deep state agents to punish his enemies.

 

During the transition, Obama intended to use the deep state to subvert the American judicial and election process, in order to stop Trump’s inauguration. In other words, Obama was deploying the FBI to initiate a coup d’etate.

 

The explanation of why there was never any opposition from the Republicans, or from the system of checks and balances in Madison’s constitution, is that his constitution never stated the mission of the Office of President.

 

Neither political party defends the public purpose of individual liberty, and all branches of government are committed to a global government.

 

A rogue president, like Obama, can easily subvert Madison’s constitutional rules, without legal consequence.

 

The three branches of government do not stop a rogue president, and the citizens, “We, the people,” are powerless to end the corrupt tyranny of globalists, who live in the swamp.

 

Madison’s flawed document suffered from two debilitating defects.

 

It was an illegitimate, illegal attempt to subvert the Articles and it was never ratified by the citizens in an open honest fair election.

 

Madison played both sides of the issue on the correct process for ratifying his constitution.

 

At first, he was in favor of a citizen’s referendum. He explained his reasoning in his letter to Jefferson, on March 19, 1787.

 

“I think myself that it will be expedient… to lay the foundation of the new system in such a ratification by the people themselves of the several States as will render it clearly paramount to their Legislative authorities.”

 

One month later, Madison was still in his popular vote modality. On April 16, 1787, he explained to George Washington:

 

“To give the new system its proper validity and energy, a ratification must be obtained from the people, and not merely from the ordinary authority of the Legislatures.”

 

Madison then reverted to his second method of ratifying his work, proposed in a series of non-public resolutions that he transmitted to the Congress of the government he was intending to overthrow.

 

Article VII of his constitution states only that 9 states were required to ratify the new constitution, not the 13 states required by the Articles.

 

His second method was a charade of citizen ratification. The 37 “We, the people,” went home and had themselves selected as delegates in the fraudulent ratification conventions, where they easily manipulated the favorable outcome for the Federalists.

Part 4. The Office of President in the Liberty States if America

 

The new constitution of the Liberty States of America provides a detailed mission statement for the Office of President.

 

It is the constitutional duty of the President to preserve, protect and defend the natural and civil rights of citizens and to defend the sovereign borders of the nation from foreign and domestic threats.

 

The new Constitution codifies that the act of spying on citizens or conducting espionage against the sovereignty of citizens or the states is clearly defined as a felony and impeachable crime, not just limited to the President, but to all national employees.

 

Upon taking office, after the election, the President swears a two-part oath. The first part is to recite part of the Declaration of Independence.

 

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

Upon the conclusion of reciting the Declaration, The President swears the following oath of office:

 

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the Liberty States of America, according to the principles of government stated in the Constitution of the Liberty States of America.

 

I solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the natural and civil rights of citizens and to defend the sovereign borders of the nation from foreign and domestic threats.

 

So Help me, God.

 

Article II, The Office of President, in the new Constitution of the Liberty States of America corrects the defects in Madison’s flawed document. The first improvement concerns term limits.

 

Section 1.

 

The executive power of the National Government shall be vested in a President of the Liberty States of America. He shall hold his office for a term of four years, and, may serve a second term, if elected.

No President may serve more than two terms, and no more than 10 years during a lifetime.

 

The new constitution clarifies the election process for the President, and shortens the duration of time from the election, in November, to the inauguration, on December 1.

 

No Person except a natural born citizen, or a verified Citizen of the Liberty States of America for the previous 10 years, shall be eligible for election of President; The President must be at least 35 years of age on the date of assuming office.

 

The President selects the candidate of Vice President, no later than August 1, of the year of the Presidential election.

 

The national election for President is held during the two days of the first weekend in November.

 

The presidential candidate with a majority of electoral college votes is declared the winner, by the House of Representatives, no later than November 15 of the year of the election. The number of electors for each State is equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

 

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and are legally obligated to vote according to the popular vote of the citizens.

 

The term of office for the President begins December 1 of the year of the election.

 

The new constitution improves the convoluted rules in Madison’s constitution on the process of removing the President.

 

In case of the removal of the President from Office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the Office, the Vice President assumes the office of President, no later than 24 hours after the removal of the President.

 

The House of Representatives, by law, may provide for the designation of an  interim President, in the event that both the President and Vice President are not able to serve the Office. Within 24 hours of appointing an interim President, the House of  Representatives shall set the time and conditions of the election of a new  President, by a vote of valid citizens in each state, to be held within 30 days of the appointment of the interim President.

 

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers whose appointment to office is confirmed by the National Congress, shall be subject to impeachment for treason against the sovereign interests of the nation or the sovereign interests of the states, espionage against verified citizens, bribery by a foreign government, or other national felony.

 

The new constitution limits the authority of the President to conduct illegal wars.

 

The President shall be the Supreme Commander in Chief of all military personnel and resources

 

Upon a presentment of a declaration of war by the President, the National Congress shall have the power to declare war and authorize the application of military power and action against foreign enemies, within 2 days of receiving the President’s declaration. No military action undertaken by the President may continue after 48 hours, without the consent of the National Congress.

 

The President shall be the Supreme Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the Liberty States, and of the National Guard of the several States, when called into the actual service of the Liberty States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the military departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. The opinions and reports shall be public records and documents, released to the public within 48 hours.

 

The new constitution clarifies the division of power between the President and the National Congress.

 

The President shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the Liberty States of America, except in cases of impeachment of any national official.

 

The President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other Executive Officers of the Liberty States of America, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the executive officers of the executive departments.

 

The President shall have the power to fill all executive vacancies that may happen during the recess of the National Congress, by granting commissions which shall expire at the resumption of the session of the National Congress.

 

He shall, on January 21 of each year, present to the National Congress, the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient for the next two years, including his proposal for the two year budget of the Liberty States of America.

Conclusion:

 

During the North Carolina ratifying convention, Delegate Lenoir stated,

 

This constitution is not proper for our adoption, as I consider that it endangers our liberties. ..The president has great powers. There is no assurance of the liberty of the press. They have power to control our elections…Its powers are very indefinite.

 

North Carolina was the only state to veto the constitution on philosophical issues about individual freedom.

 

Jefferson cited North Carolina’s opposition, in his letter of March 23, 1789, to John Paul Jones,

 

North Carolina insists that the amendments should be made before she would accede…This security for liberty seems to be demanded by the general voice of America.

 

At least the North Carolina convention was not a farce like proceedings in Delaware and Georgia whose self-selected elites approved the constitution in several days, with little public notice and superficial debate.

 

Madison admitted in Federalist #40 that the ratification process was a fraud. Madison argued that just because the ratification process was a fraud, that was not a reason to veto the constitution.

 

Madison stated,

 

Or if there be a man whose propensity to condemn is susceptible of no control, let me then ask what sentence he has in reserve for the twelve States who USURPED THE POWER of sending deputies to the convention, a body utterly unknown to their constitutions; for Congress, who recommended the appointment of this body, equally unknown to the Confederation; and for the State of New York, in particular, which first urged and then complied with this unauthorized interposition?

 

But that the objectors may be disarmed of every pretext, it shall be granted for a moment that the convention were neither authorized by their commission, nor justified by circumstances in proposing a Constitution for their country: does it follow that the Constitution ought, for that reason alone, to be rejected? If, according to the noble precept, it be lawful to accept good advice even from an enemy, shall we set the ignoble example of refusing such advice even when it is offered by our friends?

 

The British model concocted by Madison was an abject failure in preventing centralized tyranny because the British model does not have a president. It has a prime minister, who reports to the King.

 

The Office of President, in Madison’s system, became an unguided missile of rogue Presidents, who like Bush and Obama, claimed absolute moral authority to subvert the constitution that they had sworn to uphold and defend.

 

 

 

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.