Episode 72 April 13, 2021. The Precarious Natural Right of Liberty in the Failed Nation State of America: Applying the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms.

Episode 72 April 13, 2021.
The Precarious Natural Right of Liberty in the Failed Nation State of America: Applying the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the Citizens Liberty Party News Network, for April 13, 2021. Our podcast is titled, The Precarious Natural Right of Liberty in the Failed Nation State of America: Applying the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms.
We begin our argument that the failed American nation state cannot be rehabilitated, which leaves the natural right of liberty in a precarious, unprotected, condition.
We begin our argument by first reviewing the Patriot’s logic, in 1775, about why war with England was inevitable, because the natural rights of the Patriots were being destroyed by the King.
On July 6, 1775, the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms. The Patriot’s logic and circumstances of tyranny, then, are the same as the Trump voters, today, who are called domestic terrorists by the Marxist tyrants.
Back then, the King said that all the Patriots,
“All of them, either by name or description, are rebels and traitors.”
Natural rights conservatives, today, face the same choice between freedom and slavery, as the Patriots in 1775.
As they wrote,
“We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated Ministers, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us, tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.”
In their Declaration, the Patriots resolved,
“to die Freemen rather than live as Slaves.”
Like the deplorable Trump voters, today, the Patriots, then, were attacked, by unprovoked enemies of freedom, for the same reasons as the Marxists attack Trump voters, today.
The Patriots wrote,
“We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.”
Like the Marxist tyrants, today, the tyrants in 1775 attempted to take the Patriot’s guns from them, so that the Patriots were left defenseless against the British army.
Then, the first effort at gun control began with a benevolent promise, by the King’s magistrates, that the guns would be returned to the Patriots, after the riots ended.
They wrote,
“[They were instructed to] deposit their arms with their own Magistrates, The Patriots accordingly delivered up their arms; but [the King] in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governor ordered the guns turned over to the King.”
The logic of the Patriots, in taking up arms, is that the King had fundamentally altered the form of Government, like today, when the Marxists usurped power in their successful coup, and fundamentally altered the written Constitution of natural rights, with an unwritten constitution of communism.
The Patriots wrote,
“[The King] altered fundamentally the form of Government established by Charter, and secured by acts of its own Legislature, solemnly confirmed by the Crown; for exempting the “murderers” of Colonists from legal trial, and, in effect, from punishment; for erecting a despotism dangerous to our very existence;”
The Patriots objected to the two-track justice system that allowed agents of the Crown to murder Patriots, without consequence. Just as today, when Marxists escape the fundamental concept of natural law that all citizens are subject to the same law.
The Patriots began their Declaration, of 1775, in the same place that we begin ours today: on the fundamental purpose of government.
The Patriots wrote,
“Our forefathers, inhabitants of the Island of Great Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom…Government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.”
The Marxist’s coup has been successful in dismantling Madison’s system of checks and balances, and has replaced Madison’s written constitution with an unwritten unified ideology that unites all branches of government in a single mission of imposing Marxist collectivism.
The attempt by natural rights conservatives to restore the failed Former United States runs immediately, head-long, into Madison’s deliberate failure to define liberty as an enumerated right of citizens.
As Harry Jaffa has noted, Madison’s constitution protected both liberty and slavery.
Jaffa wrote, in 1999,
“The Constitution of 1787 contained powerful safeguards of slavery, along with its safeguards of individual liberty. Both kinds of safeguards were incorporated into the same constitution by the same people. Did the safeguards of slavery take on the same moral rightness and goodness as the safeguards of liberty?
We argue that the safeguards for the unenumerated right of liberty were left unprotected until the 14th Amendment, in 1868. Those unenumerated rights, in 1787, were inferior to the written, codified, enumerated rights of slavery.
Madison’s protections of slavery were codified, enumerated rights, while the protections of liberty were left unenumerated, because Madions considered them less important than checking and balancing financial factions between elites and common citizens.
In order to get the Constitution ratified by the Slave states, the major compromise Madison made was to explicitly agree that slavery was an enumerated right, for the South, and omit the mention of the unenumerated right of liberty for common citizens.
The goal of Madison’s constitution is not to secure liberty, but to insure that the financial interests of the common citizen majority would not trample on the financial interests of the minority rights of the natural aristocracy.
“Securing the blessings of liberty” is not equivalent, in his Preamble, to defining an enumerated constitutional natural right of liberty, that citizens, themselves, retain as an enumerated right to defend themselves against Marxist tyranny.
The 14th Amendment provided some relief to Madison’s flaw of omission in the ensuing evolution of the Supreme Court to define unenumerated rights in the unwritten text of the Constitution.
Under the 14th Amendment, liberty, as a concept, was equivalent to the Massachusetts’s legal endorsement of gay marriage, as an unenumerated right, that became the supreme law of the land.
The reason for the Court’s living document decisions for gay rights is that the original constitution left out the protections on liberty, and consequently, when the Justices claim new rights, under the 14th Amendment, they are not bound by the 1787 language of Madison’s constitution.
The time of death of the Former United States was around 2am, in the early morning of November 4, 2020, when the counting of votes stopped.
At that moment, the citizens of the United States ceased to be one people.
At that moment, the Former United States became two nations, with two different citizens, holding irreconcilable values about natural rights.
The death knell for the FUSA occurred on December 11, 2020, when the Supreme Court rejected a bid from the Texas’ attorney general to invalidate millions of illegal votes in battleground states that resulted in an unelected, illegitimate, Marxist tyrant being installed as a puppet leader.
The Supreme Court ruled,
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case violated the precedent of Marshall’s ruling on judicial review, as noted in the dissent of Alito and Thomas.
In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison that,
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
The Supreme Court had an unimpeachable duty to hear the Texas case.
The statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joined, states,
“In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”
Not only did the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas violate the precedence of Madison v. Marbury on its obligation to hear the case of original jurisdiction, the Court’s refusal invalidated the judicial history of the 14th amendment to protect liberty by allowing violations of liberty in one state, such as slavery, to override the liberty of citizens, free elections, in other states.
In that history of the Supreme Court’s 14th Amendment’s creation of unenumerated rights, the refusal to hear the Texas case is as much a display of untethered judicial power over the citizens, as affirming Massachusetts’s right of gay marriage as the supreme law of the land,
Citing John C. Eastman, in his article, “Judicial Review of Unenumerated Rights,”
“We agree with Jefferson’s concern that allowing the judiciary to have the final, or indeed the only, say on matters constitutional would make all of it a “despotic branch,” not just unchecked by the other branches of government, but ultimately unanswerable even to the people themselves.”
By not holding the Marxists accountable for overthrowing the government by voter fraud, the Supreme Court affirmed that the criminality of the Marxists is “unanswerable even to the people themselves.”
In other words, the Marxists are answerable only to themselves, unconstrained and unbounded by Madison’s system of checks and balances.
We argue that the American form of government has been irrevocably and irreconcilably altered by the Marxists, and can never be rehabilitated because the Marxists do not share the cultural value of equality under the law.
We agree with Glenn Ellmers, in his American Greatness article when he states,
“A voluntary separation agreed to by all the states and carried out with the consent of the people of each state, would not be secession strictly speaking, but simply an exercise by the people of their sovereign authority to remake the government.”
We argue that the only peaceful, non-violent solution of the two nations is a civil disunion, or national divorce, to allow each side to form its own new nation.
Our podcast today is the introduction to a much longer written article, available for free, for one week at the clpnewsnetwork.com.
The sections of the longer article are:
Section 1. The United States Has Ceased to Be One People.
Section 2. To Secure The Blessings of Unenumerated Liberty.
Section 3. The Uncertain Status of the Natural Right of Liberty.
Section 4. The Marxist Interpretation of “Our Democracy.”
Conclusion. Abandoning Madison’s Constitution and Restoring the Liberty of the Declaration.
We invite you to join our discussion about the precarious condition of natural rights by becoming a member of the CLP News Network, for $30 per year.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass.
Section 1. The United States Has Ceased to Be One People.
Before he died, Harry Jaffa speculated that the United States had ceased to be one people.
Jaffa wrote,
“One might wonder, entirely on the level of idle speculation, of course, whether the United States has ceased to be “one people.”
On one side of the divide, Jaffa cited non-elite citizens who revered the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and consequently deduced that majority rule in a nation of equal rights protected everyone’s right of liberty.
Jaffa wrote,
“The purpose of majority rule is to protect the equal rights of all. Whenever that proposition is not credible, free or constitutional government—government based on compact—breaks down.”
We argue that the voter fraud in the election of 2020 dismantled the principle of majority rule.
Government, based upon compact of equal liberty, broke down, and was replaced by a government where an unelected minority rules against the consent of the governed of the majority.
Glenn Ellmers describes the other side of the American divide as people who are hostile to the values of the Declaration. His term for the other side is non-American Americans.
Ellmers writes,
“The United States has become two nations occupying the same country. When pressed, or in private, many would now agree. Fewer are willing to take the next step and accept that most people living in the United States today—certainly more than half—are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term. They [the Marxists] do not believe in, live by, or even like the principles, traditions, and ideals that until recently defined America as a nation and as a people. It is not obvious what we should call these citizen-aliens, these non- American Americans; but they are something else.”
We argue that no political or military power can dislodge Marxist citizens from their allegiance of the Marxist religion as the guiding philosophy of illegitimate government in the former United States.
No amount of tinkering with election integrity laws or hoping that Trump will run in 2024, confronts the reality of the presence of a hostile enemy that seeks one-party, perpetual rule.
The Marxists are here, permanently.
In that Marxist globalist order, the concept of the sovereign nation state of America is obsolete.
We argue that what should have happened, in 2016, is that the Locke-Jefferson-Lincoln ideology of natural rights should have been defended, by the Republicans, from the Marxist and Chinese Communist take-over.
As we have stated elsewhere, when the time to confront the Marxist onslaught arrived, no organized political opposition party existed to defend liberty. (The Restoration of the American Natural Rights Republic: Correcting the Economic Consequences of the Republican Party Abdication of Natural Rights and Individual Freedom, Gabby Press, 2008).
Jaffa described why the takeover by the Marxists is permanent. He wrote,
“The political opponents [to liberty] intend to use the power of government, gained by election, to deprive it of its equal natural rights. Indeed, no one can accept as a fellow citizen anyone who does not see the process of voting as a means to implement the equal rights of everyone. Before the votes are counted, it must be understood that the winner represents those who voted against him no less than those who voted for him.”
Jaffa argues that in order for the Marxists to claim to be legitimate American citizens, the Marxists would be forced to swear allegiance to the principles of the Declaration.
Jaffa wrote,
“From Jefferson’s perspective, only those who accepted the principles of the Declaration “could be considered part of the political universe with respect to which majority rule would be possible.”
The example of Hillary and Stacey, both denying the election results in two fair elections, implies that the American tradition of the peaceful transition of power is over.
To be an American, writes Jaffa, means allegiance to the absolute natural rights truth of the Declaration.
Jaffa wrote,
“The idea that there is such a thing as justice that is true for all men and all times…The founding principles of equality and liberty were—if understood as the founders and Lincoln did— conservative principles… The founders’ doctrine also elevates politics by announcing a sacred cause, the cause of liberty, which elicits the noble virtues of statesmanship and citizenship. The social compact theory challenges men to live up to its moral demands, which require concern for others (respecting their rights) and self-restraint (the virtues of parents and citizens).
As early as 1959, in his book, Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Jaffa was projecting the division of the Nation, based upon his analysis of Lincoln’s arguments with Douglas.
In Jaffa’s logical chronology of establishing liberty in the new nation, the acceptance by American citizens of the universal truth of equality precedes the principle that “just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.”
The legitimacy of consent of the governed is dependent upon the universal acceptance of the principle of equality. Jaffa, like Jefferson and Lincoln, believed that it was morally wrong for one person to rule another without that other’s consent.
Lincoln held that blacks were equal in respect of the right to personal liberty to whites. As he argued with Douglas, the nation must therefore work toward the goal of equality, and must prevent the sanctification of slavery in national law by preventing its extension into the territories.
American citizens are now at the point in time predicted by Jefferson of “mob rule.”
Jefferson wrote,
“The people “are inherently independent of all but moral law” (letter to Spenser Roane, September 6, 1819) Let us not, however, forget, that “but.” Absent the moral law, a people becomes a mob. And mobs give rise not to free government, but to despotism.”
We are two nations, occupied by two different people because on every principle of the absolute truth of natural right and consent of the governed, the Marxists have an alien, subversive view of the founding of America.
The Marxists have no concept of morality, and without morality, the principles of equality cannot be based in a moral judgment that all citizens are equal before the law.
Jefferson stated in his inaugural address,
“All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. The will of the majority is “sacred.” For the majority, being the substitute or surrogate for the whole, must represent the minority as well as itself. The majority must understand that it is acting on behalf of the people as a whole, and hence the minority no less than the majority. And the minority must look upon the majority as governing in the interests of all, however much it may disagree with the particular measures adopted by the majority.”
By overthrowing the government, the Marxists imposed an immoral, illegitimate government, where the majority rights of common citizens are run roughshod by the unelected minority of Marxist elites.
Section 2. To Secure The Blessings of Unenumerated Liberty.
We argue that Madison’s constitution did not “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” because liberty, as a concept to be protected, was left out of Madison’s system of checks and balances.
The flaw in Madison’s system is that Madison did not identify a financial or commercial political party faction to defend liberty in the same way that he balanced ambitions of common citizens against ambitions of the financial interests of the natural aristocracy.
Madison did not cite the prior Declaration of Independence, and studiously avoided mentioning anything about the perpetual union of 13 independent states, under the Articles of Confederation.
Liberty was not an enumerated right in the same way that owning slaves was an enumerated right. Or, in the same way that wealthy citizens obtained a right to be paid in gold and silver, and not paper money issued by the states.
Liberty, as an unenumerated right, is only mentioned twice in Madison’s original text, both times in relation to a citizen’s due process right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process.
As a consequence of Madison’s flaw, in 1787, the 14th Amendment, in 1868, allowed Marxists to adopt their concept of a “living Constitution,” where rights evolved, just like the metaphor of Darwin’s evolution of the species.

Jaffa explains,
“The origins of the “living Constitution” may be traced back to the Progressive Movement that flourished at the turn of the 20th century. For the Progressives it was settled “fact” (which was wholly untrue) that “history,” especially in the form of Darwinian evolution, had replaced “nature” as the moral foundation of constitutionalism. Because men evolved, they could be made good—or at least good progressives—obviating any need for constitutional precautions on behalf of individual rights. In short, the original majoritarian process within the Constitution, subject as it was to checks and balances, became an obstacle to the unfettered rule of the progressive majority.”
As a result of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the term “liberty” in the entire United States was protected from invasion by the States, under the doctrine of substantive due process.
Substantive due process is the guarantee that the fundamental rights of citizens will not be encroached on, by either state or Federal government.
In 2020, it was the fundamental right of liberty that was violated by the fraudulent voting acts of one state against citizens of the other states.
Citing the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled,
“The ‘liberty’ mentioned in [the Fourteenth] amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free to use them in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.”
We argue that the originalist interpretation of Madison’s text would not have allowed the Supreme Court to issue this ruling, if the 14th Amendment had not been adopted because the term “liberty” was an unenumerated right in the original text.
We argue that the enumerated rights of property to own slaves was stronger than the unenumerated right of liberty, in Madison’s constitution. In the absence of the 14th Amendment, in 1857, Justice Taney was able to cite the Constitution’s right of property against Dred Scott, because Taney rejected the natural rights philosophy of liberty in the Declaration.
Taney ruled that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not United States citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. In addition, he wrote that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because enslaved workers were their legal property.
In the absence of the 14th Amendment that codified the natural right of liberty, Taney ruled that Congress had no power to prevent the spread of slavery to the territories.
It was Taney’s precedent that caused Lincoln to revert to the supremacy of natural law in the Declaration as the logic that justified the Civil War because Lincoln could not justify the elimination of slavery based upon a document that promoted slavery.
It was only after the adoption of the 14th Amendment that the Supreme Court could rule, in 1923,
“The “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause [of the 14th Amendment], without doubt … denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

In Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), the Supreme Court ruled, broadly:
“Although the Court has not assumed to define “liberty” with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective.”
In Poe v. Ullman (1961), dissenting judge John Marshall Harlan II adopted a broad view of the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause:
“The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints … and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.”
We agree with Justice Harlan that the reason the Court could define the term “liberty” with any precision is because Madison left the definition of liberty out of his original text as an enumerated right.
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) as written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite,
“The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.”
In Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the Court ruled,
“The action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”
The vote fraud in 5 states deprived the citizens in 45 other states the equal protection of the law.
Our argument is that the 14th Amendment required the Supreme Court to intervene in the Texas case to protect the unenumerated right of liberty, which were left unprotected as an enumerated right by Madison.
The natural right of liberty becomes an unenumerated right in Madison’s constitution because natural rights and natural law are not the foundation of Madison’s constitution.
Liberty, as a concept for Madison, becomes just another commercial faction to be balanced against other commercial and financial interests. But liberty, as a concept, had no political party to defend it in Madison’s two party system of checks and balances, unlike the political parties for the common citizens and the natural aristocracy.
Section 3. The Uncertain Status of the Natural Right of Liberty.
In his review of the book, The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom, by Thomas G. West, Vincent Munoz clarifies the uncertain status of the concept of liberty in America, after the vote fraud of 2020.
The argument made by West is that Madison, and the Federalists, deliberately changed the moral foundation of government from one of natural rights to a British class-conflict framework of government.
West holds that the founders of 1775 understood equality to mean that no human being is born inferior in the sense of being naturally subject to the dominion of another. All adult individuals, in other words, have a natural and equal title to govern themselves, based upon the moral absolute truth that humans own, and have dominion, over their lives.
The so-called founders of 1787 did not hold these same views of human sovereignty.
West cites the work of Harry Jaffa to make his argument of the two different versions of the “American founding.”
Jaffa wrote that the core of the founding in 1775 is the principle of natural human equality, as expressed in Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms.
Jaffa wrote,
“Natural rights, the idea of the state of nature, and social compact theory follow from the principle of natural equal liberty. Because all men are equally free by nature, they have moral claims vis-à-vis one another, i.e., natural rights. Among those rights is the right not to be compelled to be a member of a political community. Just government, accordingly, must be instituted via the consent of the governed, and if an individual is born into an existing social compact, he or she has a natural right to emigrate.”
West places the natural rights interpretation of the Declaration into the larger framework of a theory of justice. As a theory of justice, the Declaration is a valid defense of liberty while Madison’s constitution fails in this context as a theory of justice.
West explains that the Declaration’s theory of justice derives from the Lockean principle of property rights, which were bastardized when Madison adopted the British mixed government framework.
West wrote,
“An inherent aspect of mankind’s equal natural liberty is the individual’s ownership of his own labor, which includes the right to use his talents to acquire property and the right to enjoy the fruits of his labor. Natural justice, then, demands that political communities recognize individuals’ rights to
1) own and use property in land and other goods and
2) sell or give property to others on terms of their own choosing. Respect for the natural rights of property also demands
3) government support of sound money. These basic elements of a free market economy all follow from our natural human equality.”

We argue that the same Lockean moral foundations of justice, found in the Declaration, establishes the moral foundations of a free enterprise capitalist economy.
One reason for the uncertain fate of the natural right of liberty is that the Marxists intend to replace capitalism with communism, and in doing so, eliminate the natural right of liberty.
Locke had written,
“Man…hath by nature a power… to preserve his property—that is, his life, liberty and estate.”
The Declaration extended Locke’s principle by claiming that the right of property in himself is an unalienable right. The Declaration protected the natural right of liberty as an enumerated, unalienable right.
Madison’s constitution denied the moral foundation of a citizen’s right of property in himself to establish the right of property in another human.
In other words, in Madison’s conception, the unalienable right of liberty was re-defined because the property of slaves could be alienated from the slave, himself, and turned into a commodity of market exchange by the slave owner.
The Marxist logic today is to extend the right of human property exclusively to the government, where all citizens are owned by the government, and become slaves to the Marxist dictatorship.
The flaw in Madison’s adoption of the British class based framework of government is described by Hernando De Soto, in his book, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.
De Soto wrote,
“The English common law of property was often ill suited to deal with the problems that confronted the colonists… Americans built a new concept of property,’ one that emphasized its dynamic aspects, associating it with economic growth’… American property changed from being a means of preserving an old economic order to being, instead, a powerful tool for creating a new one.”
The reason American capitalism worked, in the time prior to 2020, was that the concept of property in capitalism was based upon the natural right of liberty.
The American natural rights lineage extends from Locke to Jefferson to Lincoln, and that lineage and heritage was dismantled by the Marxists.
The natural rights lineage is replaced by the stunted intellectual work of Marx, where natural rights has no legitimacy.

Lincoln stated that Jefferson’s Declaration declared,
“an abstract truth applicable to all men and all times.”
In contrast to the absolute moral truth of Jefferson, the Marxist writer, Carl Becker responds,
“To ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false is essentially a meaningless question.”
Section 4. The Marxist Interpretation of “Our Democracy.”
In rejecting the absolute moral truth of natural rights, the Marxists redefine the term “democracy,” in order to fit it into their narrative of white supremacy.
The term is redeployed as “Our Democracy” to fit it into the Aristotle’s classification of the many against the few.
For Aristotle, democracy referred to the factional interest of the poor and the many against the rich and the few. For Aristotle, the end condition of democracy was “mob rule.”
The poor against the many fits into the Marxist class conflict model of the capitalist class against the proletariat.
Mary Parker Follett, who published The New State in 1918, outlined the Marxist understanding of democracy,
“Democracy has meant to many [the equivalence of] natural rights, liberty and equality. The acceptance of the group [identity] principle defines for us in truer fashion those watchwords of the past. If my true self is the group-self, then my only rights are those which membership in a group gives me. The group and the individual come into existence simultaneously: with this group-man appears group-rights. Thus man can have no rights apart from society or independent of group.”
The end goal of American Marxists is to eliminate the concept of the individual, and the natural right of individual liberty.
In David Azerrad’s article, The Social Justice Endgame What do Social Justice Warriors Want? he explains that the entire foundation of Marxist logic is based upon the elitist concept that Marxists are superior to common citizens in making collective political decisions.
Azerrad states,
“[The Marxist] social justice arbiters then claim for themselves the exclusive right to mete out justice.”
In other words, in redefining the term democracy, the Marxist replace the concept of individual natural rights justice with social justice based upon group identity classifications, that only the Marxist elites are able to discern.
Azerrad cites the Black Marxist writer Ibram X. Kendi anti-individual, white supremacist philosophy in Kendi’s book, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, (2016).
According to Azerrad, Kendi defining as racist,
“any concept that regards one racial group as inferior or superior to another racial group in any way” (emphasis added). Readers are therefore forbidden at the outset from making comparative generalizations of any kind in any area, and Kendi encourages us to apply his dogmatic pronouncements on race to other protected classes.”
The “other protected classes” is the method for Marxists to move from the Marxian capitalist conflict model to the current Marxist concept of race-based Marxism.
The key concept in understanding the modern Marxism of Kendi is to apply the idea of moral relativism that the American tradition of natural rights, via Locke-Jefferson-Lincoln, is equivalent to any other communist or Marxist society.
Kendi argues that racism exists as a social construct as a part of the Marxist logic of the social construction of reality. American white supremacy is entirely related to unequal power relationship between Blacks and Whites.
Kendi extends the argument that the American culture of white supremacy is morally equivalent to any other culture and society.
Azerrad cites Kendi,
“All cultures, in all their behavioral differences, are on the same level.”
In other words, according to Black Marxists, racism is systematic and endemic to the American founding, it was “stamped from the beginning.” The only solution for ending racism is to place elites like Kendi in a position of unelected power to eliminate racists White people.
Azerrad summarizes the end goal of Marxist social justice, for Kendi,
“Kendi calls for “creating an agency that aggressively investigates the disparities and punishes conscious and unconscious discriminators. This agency would also work toward equalizing the wealth and power of Black and White neighborhoods and their institutions” Whites must therefore be taught to acknowledge their privilege, repent for the sins of their race, adopt a deferential pose vis-à-vis the people of color who continue to be oppressed by the pervasive whiteness of America, and actively oppose racism.”
We agree with Azzerad’s conclusion about the consequence of Kendi’s ideology of hate, that the more we see racism everywhere; the more we relentlessly attack whites for their privilege; the more we allocate desirable positions on the basis of race rather than merit, then the more likely we are two distinct and separate people.
As we noted elsewhere, one of the unintended consequences of Kendi’s race hatred is the development of a white class consciousness that aims to defend itself from the violent attacks by Black people who have been taught to hate White people, and consider their murder, justifiable. (Vass, Laurie Thomas, The Unintended Consequence of the BLM Marxist Allegation of “White Supremacy.” CLP News Network, 2020.)
The end goal of the Marxists is the eradication of private property, capitalism and individual rights.
As noted by Allen C. Guelzo, in his review of the Marxist book, Slavery All the Way Down A review of The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism,
According to the Democrat Marxist social construction of reality, capitalism is slavery.
Guelzo summarizes the Marxist argument that capitalism is slavery,
“Baptist insists, and torture thus “extracted an amount of innovation virtually equal in numerical measure to all the mechanical ingenuity in all the textile mills in the Western world. It is with that sentence that Baptist unloads what I suspect is his real indictment, against capitalism and industry as a whole, since for him, all capitalist production is “systematized torture,” which was “crucial…to the industrial revolution, and thus to the birth of the modern world.”
In contrast to the Marxist argument that capitalism is slavery, we agree with the Patriots of 1775, in their Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, that being owned by the communist government is slavery.
Conclusion. Abandoning Madison’s Constitution and Restoring the Liberty of the Declaration.
We extend Jaffa’s argument about the conservative lineage of Locke-Jefferson-Lincoln, to make the further point that the Declaration is the legitimate founding document of America that established the moral foundation of individual natural rights.
The two documents, the Declaration and the Constitution, need to be treated as distinct documents, one based upon the universal truth of natural rights, and the other based upon rules of civil procedure to avoid the tyranny of the majority of common citizens over the minority financial interests of the natural aristocracy.
One document has died, while the principles of liberty endure.
We agree with Angelo Codevilla that the written constitution of Madison’s representative republic founded, 13 years after the Declaration, has died.
The written constitution was replaced by an unwritten constitution that is managed by what Codevilla calls the ruling class.
Codevilla writes,
“In today’s America, a network of executive, judicial, bureaucratic, and social kinship channels bypasses the sovereignty of citizens. Our imperial regime, already in force, works on a simple principle: the president and the cronies who populate these channels may do whatever they like so long as the bureaucracy obeys and one third plus one of the Senate protects him from impeachment
As long as conservatives continue to combine and conflate the American founding with both the Declaration and the Constitution, Black Marxists will continue to have a compelling argument that the founding of America is based upon white supremacy and the sin of slavery.
That argument of hate was effective, as a political weapon, in allowing the Marxists to overthrow the written Constitution.
We agree with John Marini, in his article, Abandoning the Constitution, that the underlying principles of Madison’s document are no longer effective as a guide to governing, and no longer relevant, after the coup of 2020.
Marini writes,
“If a written constitution is to have any meaning, it must have a rational or theoretical ground that distinguishes it from government. When the principles that establish the legitimacy of the constitution are understood to be changeable, are forgotten, or denied, the constitution can no longer impose limits on the power of government.”
Under the Marxist regime, there is no separation between the ideology of communism and the operation of the government.
Following Codevilla, the American republic has entered into the era of “fake constitutionalism.”
The foundation of the Declaration was a compact between citizens to protect the natural God-given equal rights of all citizens.
Marxists changed that conception to assert the Constitution is a contract between government and the citizens, where rights are no ordained by God, but ordained by an all-powerful tyrannical power.
We agree with Marini that the change in the understanding of the Constitution occurred under Roosevelt.
“Roosevelt assumed and simply asserted that the compact is between government and the people. But that is contrary to both the theoretical and practical meaning of the original social compact… By suggesting that the people accord government power on the condition that they are given rights, the concept of social or group rights (and subsequently entitlements), becomes the moral foundation of government. The purpose of government [under Marxism] is therefore linked to the satisfaction of needs of the privileged minority groups.”
Madison’s constitutional system attempted to embody the principles of republican government into a structure of democratic institutions accountable to the people. Although the institutions were separated, and constituencies and perspectives differed, each branch participated in defining and pursuing the common good.
Madison’s system ended in failure because he deliberately made the power of the natural aristocracy greater than the common citizens, and defined no pathway for the common citizens to regain their liberty, after his system failed.
Codevilla’s ruling class manages the administrative state in order to determine what constitutes the public purpose. The corporate and Marxist elites in the bureaucracy are shielded from the popular control that might be exercised through elections, because they were successful in destroying the election system.
Under Marxism, equal justice under the law has ceased to be the end goal of government, and with that ending, the natural rights of citizens, under the Declaration, have ended.
In his debates with Douglas, Lincoln argued that if slavery was morally wrong, under the Declaration, there can be no right in the people, under the Constitution, to choose what was wrong with extending slavery to the territories.
Marxism is morally wrong, and the citizens, today, like the citizens in 1858, and the Patriots of 1775, have a moral duty to eliminate slavery.
In the Locke-Jefferson-Lincoln philosophy of government, the moral law came first, and after the moral law, the citizens created the civil law.
They believed that the moral law made the people, in contrast to the Marxists, who hold that the people make the moral law.
Natural rights conservatives, today, are in exactly the same historical circumstances as the Patriots in 1775, who drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms.
Both sets of citizens faced the threat of totalitarian oppression, and the solution to that threat, today, is the same as it was in 1775.
The outcome of liberty, today, depends on the decision of conservatives to either live free, or die as slaves.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this article is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.