"All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either." Thomas Paine by Republicae
Thursday, April 3, 2008
"All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either." Thomas Paine
As Thomas Paine said, time does not alter either the nature or the quality of the principles behind power. Either that power is delegated from a superior source of Sovereignty or it is assumed and therefore usurped. Now, the question of Sovereignty is perhaps one of the most important questions concerning the degree and quality of Liberty within this country. Only a Sovereign Source can delegate power and authority; likewise, only a Subordinate Source can receive those delegated powers and authority to act upon them.
It then becomes quite obvious in the following words within the Declaration of Independence where all Sovereignty emanates: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" Those peculiar words were to declare the independence of the colonies from Britain. Additionally, once the War for American Independence was won, Great Britain recognized each State, by name, as being Sovereign and Independent States. This same phraseology was then used in the Articles of Confederation in the description of the States.
When these same States, by the consent of their Citizens, through Convention ratified the Constitution they did so in the same Sovereign Status as they did when they Declared their Independence to form a Revolutionary government and then formulated a Confederation through Consent and Compact; as the need arose they then entered into a Compact between themselves to form the Sovereign States in Union. They, through Consent, retained the same style throughout every stage of political formation. Each government, both the government of the Several States and the general government of the States or the federal government, were delegated powers and authority derived from the Consent of the People Sovereign.
The facts are well-established and the provision within the Constitution is too explicit to deduct any other opinion except that the States retained their Sovereign Status through the delegated authority and powers of the People through their Consent. So, even after the Ratification of the Constitution, the independent, distinct and sovereign character by which they both formed and ratified that Compact was never divested from the States, nor the People. The People are the Prima Materia Imperium from which all Powers and Authority stems within this country and within both the State and the federal governments, it can not originate in either government since they are both ordained and established by the People. Remember, a thing created can never be greater then the one who created it, the act of creation is the superior act.
Each government is the natural extension of the governed since each government, whether State or general, partakes in the character of the source which formed it to act as an Agent on the behalf of those who gave Consent; thereby delegating authority and power to act in their best interests. Since Sovereignty is the source of all delegated powers and authority, the primary benefactor of such power and authority will be the States in which the Sovereign People reside, from there the States, acting as Agents of the People will properly delegate and grant a degree of authority and powers to the general or federal government to act in a limited capacity on behalf of the States united as a political community for the Sole Benefit of their Citizens.
The federal government has no powers or authority that emanates inherently from itself, despite its claim to the contrary, but must rely solely upon the delegation of those powers and that authority from the Sovereignty of the People of the Several States. The federal government is a reflection of the States united through the Voluntary Compact of Union, otherwise known as the Constitution.
The allegiance of the People therefore, will naturally be toward their respective States since it is the Several States that make up the Voluntary Union of States which reflects those States through the usage of Three Distinct and Separate Branches. Each of those Branches are also totally dependent on the Concurrent Consent of the States and the People in their Sovereign Character as each Branch depends on the Delegation of Their Power and Authority to act.
So, the States were Ordained to act through the powers and authority delegated to them by the Sovereign People of each State, in turn the federal government was Ordained by the States to act both on the behalf of the States and in turn the People Sovereign. The government of the United States is not now, nor has it ever been singular, but reflects the Several States by their Concurrent Consent as Ordained and Granted by the People.
The Preamble of the Constitution defines the reasons for the Ordination of the government and those reasons are clearly enumerated as very specific objects: "to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." So, it was the Several States, or the People that make up the Several States, that Ordained the government through the Ratification of the Constitution between them; this Act of Concurrent Consent and Ratification did not place the federal government over the States or the People, the Several States, and thus the People only delegated a degree of authority and power to it in order for it to fulfill the specific enumerated objects previously stated.
It is obvious therefore, or at least it should be, that the one to whom authority and power is delegated is not, nor can it be higher then the one delegating that power and authority. The Authority that ordains and establishes must therefore, be higher than that which is ordained and established. This should be common sense, unfortunately the assumption of powers not only usurps common sense, but power as well.
The 10th Amendment states clearly that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, by the Compact between the Several States vested a degree of power and authority to the general or federal government. It split this power and authority between Three Branches, distinct in purpose and operations. The 10th Amendment then continues to say that those powers that are not delegated to the federal government and that are not prohibited by it [the Constitution] are reserved to the States or to the People. This is not a limitation upon either the States or the People, but solely upon the federal government of these United States. It is also apparent that there are powers and authority that the People did not delegate to either the States or the federal government, but that are completely retained by them alone.
This is the bar, the measurement of all government action and legislation. There can be no action or legislation that infringes upon the Retained Rights, the Retained Authority and Power of the People. Although Congress and even the State Legislatures tend to present and pass legislation that does not conform to the principle that the People retain these Sovereign Characteristics, the proper and legal measure of all legislation is if that legislation contradicts those Rights Reserved and Retained by the People and the People alone. There are, in additional to those Rights enumerated within the Constitution, Rights, Power and Authority Retained by the People which are not mentioned, not enumerated within the Constitutional Compact.
Additionally, even the Supreme Court of these United States should, by the act of the Sovereign Source of its own delegated powers, always consider the measure of all opinions based not on an allowable degree of Rights due the People, but solely limiting the assumption of powers by the government itself. The Supreme Court only holds the degree of supremacy as it is delegated to it and no more.
Through the Compact between the Several States, the People ordained and established a government of the People, by the People and solely for benefit of the People. This government was formed and intended to operate as a federal, in contradistinction of a national government. In a national government all other Constitutions and governments, such as those of the States would be superceded and absorbed, but that was never the case, nor is it the case even though for decades that has been the primary focus of certain elements within the federal government and both of the ruling political parties. The Several States are the expression of the People's Sovereignty, as is the federal government the expression of the People's Will through the Several States in Union. Each of the Several States, by Concurrent Consent of the People, ratified this Voluntary and Reflective Union but retained all Sovereignty and Power to alter, abolish or, if necessary, to leave that Voluntary Union.
Likewise, the Executive and the Legislative Branches are only allowed a degree of authority and power as it is delegated to them to perform a very specific and narrow set of obligations to the People. Any actions or Legislation beyond those specific and narrow set of obligations and all Three Branches only assume power, or usurp it from the People.
Of course, through the decades the 10th Amendment, like the 9th has been ignored to the point of being effectively neutralized. There are no divided powers, no divided authority, no divided sovereignty; it all rest within the People and is only delegated to the Several States and to the federal government. The Several States and the federal government hold Authority and Power only in Delegated Trust; with that Trust comes all the Responsibility and Duty enumerated within the Compact between the Several States agreed by Concurrent Consent of the People of those Several States.
Since all Power and Authority is either Delegated through legal Consent or Assumed and thereby Usurped illegally, where does that leave us in our opinion of this current government? What respect or loyalty do We legally have to a government who has illegally Assumed and Usurped its Authority and Power from the People of these Several States united?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 33
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Republicae only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Republicae is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I'm supposed to have loyalty to lines on a map? To a piece of cloth with a design on it? To a document that, in the case of my State of Texas, was very literally written by a group of people who wanted to steal the land from a corrupt government (Mexico) not for the benefit of the people but so they could corrupt it and make money off it themselves?
Tossing around high sounding words like duty and consent, no matter how many capital letters or archaic, self-important phrasing you use in your literary constructions, will not fix the single broken point in your argument.
The People are fucking idiots.¬†
60% of the people don't even bother to vote on national level, 80% on a state level, 90% don't bother to vote on a local level. THose who do, less than half even bother to do the cursory required study of the positions, relying either on the media or word of mouth or, God Help Me, Youtube videos to determine who they should vote for.¬†
The document you describe, the system you champion, the rights you plead for, the DEMANDS you make, require a people that CARE, that get ANGRY and want real honest changes and are willing to suffer and go through privation and even die for their liberties.
That's why Libertarians have always amused me. It isn't that your ideas are bad (although Ayn Rand's verge on psychotic denial of reality). It isn't that the Libertarian position is wrong. It isn't that government has any moral or logical right to be "in charge" or that the states are not important.
It's that the People couldn't care less who runs things or even how it's run as long as they have their credit card binges, their media fix, their Little League games, their on the side coke habits, their welfare check, etc etc etc.
I feel sorry for honest, upstanding, and intelligent people like you. You are a good man, I think ,and you have the hope that most of your fellow Americans are honest, upstanding, intellegent, good men and women.
They're lazy thugs. Hamilton was right, when you turn the government's reins into the hands of the mob, do not be shocked when you end up in a mud pit. Well , HERE WE ARE, in an election with a warmonger, a black race-bating version of a mix of the charisma and fasicsm of Hitler with the lack of real answers of Marcus Garvey, and a feminazi¬† who feels entitled to be President no matter what.
Oh, right, and Ron Paul, who's answer to fix everything is ignore the fact that the country is BROKEN and pretend Americans can run themsevles.
Well, you keep believing, brother ,and I'll pray for you no matter what. When the next McPresident gets elected, maybe people will start listening to the statist who are saying "if you're going to have a strong central govenrment, at least put limits on what it can do to it's own citizens."¬†
Unfortunately, the last 147 years we have had a growing Statist government in this country. Starting with the effectual tyranny of Lincoln, the Statist have show us what they can do and the results are far less than successful, just look around you. What you see are the effects of a Monarchist Statism that seeks dominate legislation at home and interventionism abroad, neither have worked.¬†
This country is indeed "broken" but the question is who broke it? My contention is that it began its massive decline with the assent of The Statists and it ¬†been going down-hill ever since.¬†
The outcome of what we are now witnessing is the direct result of Statist policies and legislation over the last several decades, as Statism increases so too does chaos. Statism doesn't take into consideration the desires of human nature and imposes legislations that contradict that nature. I suppose that is why Statist and Socialist tend to side with each other, yet they have only proved, throughout the decades, that their efforts to place their particular "order" on this country and the world has failed, it hasn't worked, doesn't work and won't work.
We have not seen the workings of the Republic for well over a hundred years. It has been in the hands of the Statist, whether they lean on the side of Fascism or Socialism, the results are similar, broken government weighted down with debt, inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies, and Statist idiots running the show who have no idea what they are doing, what they have done or what to do next.
Statism...a complete failure, just look at your government...it is the picture of Statism.¬†
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-04 10:16:09
The system is broken because we are not following the directions!
Creator created man
Man created Constitution
Constitution made government
Government allows the environment for¬†corporations
The PEOPLE are not idiots. We The People made this wonderful form of government. I agree the sheeple are idiots, but only because they have been fed a bag full of shit by THE SYSTEM that means to oppress it.
I used to have a sticker on my locker in my team room when I was a young SGT. it stated "Your government wants ignorant unarmed peasants" so they coral the sheeple into that pen, while those of us that bay loudly and protest are labeld black sheep by the farmer (Federal Govt).
I have more faith in Nature than I do Human Nature for sure, but only because we have been seperated from nature by human nature. Trust me if the food tap was cut off (add any subsidy)¬†people would get off their asses and find food. They would find work, they would make their own way or die. This is nature or natural law.
Can no¬†statist get that it is possible on ok to rule yourself? Is self governance¬†or independant soveriegnty real out of your grasp? It surely is not out of mine. If you want to live in a Statist society go join the military. I payed for my liberty by standing on the wall for almost 2 decades, once my part was done I opted for the LIBERTY I earned by protecting the flock.
Keep writing Repulicae, you're doing awesome. Please email me as I have a proposition for you. firstname.lastname@example.org.
PH: No, statists can't get it that you can rule yourselves. Statists can't get it that you can expect a Consitutional Republic to rule itself by the People when the People are, as you so charmingly put them, mostly sheeple. If you can't let the "sheeple" make decisions (because they're idiots) then you're back to the original Founders who only let the rich , landowning majority elite vote -- which is BASICALLY STATISM.
The problem with Statist is that they don't understand that what we have had for the last century and a half has been Statism and it has been and is an absolute mess. Statism is an ideology that relies upon sheep and the fact is that if you are not a part of the "oligarchy elite", which it is evident that you are not, then you are nothing in your beloved "State" but a mere cog, little more than the equivalent of one of the "idiot sheeple" that you so adamantly rail against with such apparent spite and bile.¬†
I have read your articles and find them extremely lacking in logical coherence and historical relevance, not to mention the facts that you seem to base your assumptions upon.
The Republic worked very well for over 73 years until it was preempted by the Statist Ideology of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans, who were nothing more than Hamiltonian Nationalist.¬†
In Rome, the Republic lasted for generations, once again until the Statist dictators ultimately ran it into the ground. ¬†
¬†Oh, and your misplaced arrogance betrays you, perhaps you should look in the mirror of your own conceit to see the image of a brick, hmmm?¬†
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-07 12:49:12
Yes I agree the sheeple are ignorant because the state has made them so.
We LIBERTY minded few try and educate the masses of the truth, so they can join the ranks of the "enlightened". Not that we enlightened are any better than the rest, but we understand what is really going on. We understand that our government is not benevolent. We understand that the government cares not about the individual. We understand that all people can take care of themselves. We understand that the natural tendancy of government is too try and attain more power. We understand that in garnering more power the government takes power away from the people. Dont you get it. Freedom is finite, when you give it to one you must take it from others.
Can you really avocate people giving up their own freedoms for your skewed veiw of reality. We live in reality. We understand life is hard. We understand that you have to work hard to maintain your LIBERTY. We understand that life is rough and we need to make alliances to get by in life. But the bottom line is still it is up to you to provide for you, and me to provide for me. If you want to form an alliance of your own free will go ahead. But when you force me to join your little feel good party you inevitable infringe on my LIBERTY. I think every citizen should have a copy of the Constitution, yet I am not advocating that you pay for distribution of a document you so abhore. Got it?
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-07 13:11:59
Let me adress the landowner thing one more time as you obviously didnt get it the first 3 times I explained it to you.
The reason they debated landownership in order to vote was to inherently take in Human nature. The Founders believed that if someone owned property they were more inclinded to make their community better, b/c they had a vested interest. Those that owned no land or property had no vested interest in hanging around and making things better. In fact it left things open for malicious behaviors in politics of others from different areas.
For example why should I a resident (landowner) be able to vote and influence the politics of another state in which I dont reside (dont own land or property)
If someone owns possessions in that area they are much more likely to right wrongs then say, screw it Im outa here it is for those crazy folks in state A so Im movin to state b and dont care if I screw up state A on the way out.
You try and make the founders seem like biggots at every turn, yet it was Jefferson (that you so despise)¬†that wanted to end slavery to begin with, yet the compromise with northern Federalist allowed slavery to continue until the War for Southern Independance. Your Statist friends (that traitor Hamilton and his federalist ilk) traded the money and soveriegnty of all the people over the freedom of black people, in the great compromise of 1789, great Patriot of the State.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-27 14:17:38
On the whole, "logical" has the more valid argument.
The Peopleare fucking idiots.¬† Each individual person is almost certainly a "good guy" [or gal], who does his job well because he knows his job well.¬† It's just that when you take that "good guy" and give him an opportunity to operate as a presumptive equal in a subject area in which he may have a sincere belief but is subject-area ignorant, then what happens is ... democrats criticising republican foreign policy.¬† Most of the arguments were facile, based on ignorance and bias.¬† Those of us who work in the area of implementing foreign policy either have the capacity to tune out all the ijjits, or [like me] stopped to correct the false and nonsensical "facts" every time they got aired anew.
I'm no more an expert on nuclear physics than 99.95% of Americans are on military doctrine, diplomatic reality, history and international law considerations.¬† I'd fully expect a nuclear physicist to object if I were to give him a lecture on how to design a nuclear power plant for¬†I - to him - would be a fucking idiot.
But that's what inevitably happens when you create "democracy".¬† You claim people are equal [when they are clearly not] and give the bookkeeper exactly as much theoretical input into what gas mileage standards could and should be as the automotive engineer.¬† That's not a good way to design automobiles, or set standards.
I have a feeling "Logical's" statism is the result of Nth-degree cynicism rather than an absolute believe in the power and ability of the state.¬† Since people are indeed idiots - and almost exclusively apathetic ones at that who can't even manage, in our day, to wipe their own bottoms¬†a lot of the time - why not the state?
Some old Greek guy, around the time of the Pellopenesian Wars, suggested that a democracy can last until the People - who are idiots - discover they can vote themselves a share of the public treasury.¬† This sentiment has been echoed afterward by many of the commentators on democracy, including deTocqueville.¬† It then becomes a race to see who can vote themselves the largest share of the treasury before it all goes *>boom<*
As far as I'm concerned, we're heading toward the finish line right now.¬† Because people are idiots.
Now, "Patrick", you allude to the reason why this idiocy is ultimately self-defeating, yet you're criticising "logical" for saying so.¬† Makes no sense.¬† The reason land-owners got the vote and no one else did was because they were the ones to lose if the masses of others could vote themselves a redistribution of wealth - which in the late 18th century was intimately tied to land.
A more modern version of the same notion would be tax-paying.¬† If you are a taxpayer, then you get a vote.¬† And no, not everyone pays taxes.¬† In recent revalations revolving around Tea Party discussions, only 54% of Americans pay federal income taxes.¬† Imagine how different our elections would turn out if the voter base were culled by 46%?¬† Guess whose interests would be legislated?
With those 46% voting, we've got Americans demanding their share of the treasury and democracy is getting cooked.¬† The Tea Party - middle class Americans, in ultra-large share - are demanding "smaller government" which directly translates to "no shares of the treasury being doled out to all comers".
It also means "less regulation", which would result in idiot people accepting much of the responsibility for their own conditions and circumstances - such as nutrition and food safety.¬† You want to eat sugar-loaded lard just because it comes in fancy-shaped microwavable pouches, then you're an idiot and you can die from diabetic-related coronary disease.¬† More power to you.
Those who choose to educate themselves about such things will not be idiots per se and will cook the e Coli out of the burgers.¬† The need for regulatory control would then be pointless.