Can a Return to the Constitution Save America Today
Or Is It Time For Left and Right America To Divorce
More and more people are increasingly and openly discussing Civil War and a breakup of the independent but united States of America. When in reality, the decentralization of unlawfully gained powers by the federal body, and a return to a Constitutional Republic would in fact fix all of the ills of America today. The real irony is, that if we all stood together and demanded a return to the Constitutional Republic and the nation as founded, we would all be free to be ourselves and build whatever kind of government we wanted! Feds be damned! How? Well you have to read the entire article to discover how we could all be free today!
There are some people that believe we live in a constitutional republic still, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Some people will argue that we live in a constitutional democracy, which is equally asinine and could not be any further from the truth. Others still would argue that we live in an oligarchy, which again is largely incorrect.
Were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison Allies or Opponents as Founding Fathers?
It should be noted that these two were fierce opponents during the founding of the nation, and it should be noted that by many accounts, Jefferson serving in Paris during the time Madison spent writing the Constitution, was no accident, and intended in order to expedite the creation of the document.
Jefferson today is counted among the classical liberals, (not to be confused with the modern perversion of liberal ideology) but was in essence, a federalist, though one who believed that the federal government should be actively constrained lest it centralize all power. Madison, a very determined federalist, firm in his beliefs, scoffed at such a notion, as he believed that the States would keep the federal body in check.
What is perhaps ironic, certainly notable, and perhaps prescient, was that these two ended up united with a bond stronger than the basis on which they opposed one another during the formation of our Constitutional Republic. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson united as allies to fight the unlawful usurpation of power by the federal government.
What Are The Nullification Acts?
The first Nullification Acts were written for the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Commonwealth of Kentucky by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson respectively. These are noteworthy as they specifically deal with the federal body seeking to enforce its own (unlawful but not illegal under the color of law) laws in the independent States.
These documents, written by two of the founding fathers are relevant because they clearly demonstrate that none of the founders and framers sought to have an all-encompassing, intrusive, endless supply of powers to regulate the States, much less to control the people within the States.
The Nullification Acts are even more noteworthy as they clearly state the penalty for federal officers trying to enforce unlawful federal law within the independent States, and the penalty to be imposed was the death penalty for these federal officers of the law.
Clearly, it was not the intent of the author of the declaration of independence or the father of the constitution to have an all-powerful federal government such as we have now. As will be demonstrated further along in this article, this is also how all of the current ills in America could be rectified through a return to the Constitution.
Is The Constitution a Contract with the People?
The Constitution is itself a compact* between the independent but united States and the Federal Government. It is ostensibly at least, a means by which the federal government can be restrained so as not to impose ideologies or unjust laws on the people, but merely through its interaction with the States in the form of the State governments.
A compact as defined by Blacks Law 4th Editions is:
COMPACT, n. An agreement; a contract. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 92, 5 L.Ed. 547. Usually applied to conventions between nations or sovereign states. [As is the case with the Constitution]
A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. Story, Const. b. 3, c. 3; Rutherf.Inst. b. 2, c. 6, § 1.[Further supporting the separation of State Law and Federal Law, wherein the powers of the federal government are by definition and legal restriction, "few and well-defined"]
A mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. Chesapeake & 0. Canal Co. v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 4 Gill & J., Md., 1 [In this case, the "property" is the people and/or persons living under the jurisdiction of the States, answerable to State laws. This, in addition to the lawful right of the State to govern those people, in accordance with State laws.]
There are many references, and a careful reader will note the inclusion of both the terms “people” and “persons”, these being distinct and unique in meaning. The “People” is the body politic or citizens, be they citizens of the State or local citizens.
At the time of the founding, and until the implementation of the 14th Amendment, there were no US or “American” Citizens, but merely citizens of the independent but united States, bound under a federal contract. Persons on the other hand, includes all of the humans living within the confines of the united States. They may have been Native American, illegal aliens, or even just tourists here temporarily.
A person may be part of the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia as one example, visiting Philadelphia, where they would not be part of the people, but a legal person nonetheless. Why is any of that important?
Is The United States a Nation of Laws?
Actually, no. The independent but united States of America were bound under a constitutional republic that would serve as the supreme Law of the land. Thus, the US is technically, or was at least, a nation of Law, not Laws.
However, since it has become largely a nation of laws, many of these federal laws as codified and noted above, would it not be prudent that all laws be presented to the people? Would it be illegal, or perhaps even unlawful to deny access to the people regarding all of the laws they were subject to be held accountable for?
Why then, in the Law Library breakdown and instruction manual for the Code of Federal Regulations do we see the following quote so frequently? “Provisions of public laws assigned as notes to sections in the USC also have the force of law as do statutory provisions omitted as unnecessary from the Code, but not repealed.”
This is especially troubling to me in terms of Title 2 section 60 where it deals with legal jurisdictions and the ability of the US citizen, the people, to have a value placed on any claims against them, and an opportunity based on this, to determine the jurisdiction under which their case will be heard. There have not been any courts of equity or courts of common law made available to the people since at least the 1930s, but why not?
All of this is a direct result of the (unlawful but not illegal under the color of law) usurpation of powers not among the few and well defined limitations of the federal body. A return to the original constitution would require a Republican form of government only at the State and Federal level but as was never intended, not at the local level. Why is this important?
So What Kind of Nation is America Today?
What the nation of America is in fact, is an Incorporated form of government, ruled under the general rules of contracts also known as the Uniform Commercial Code, embodied in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, along with a host of other laws codified in the Internal Revenue Code.
(Can anyone show me where these federal laws or federal citizenship are among the few and well defined powers of the federal body as written in the Constitution?)
How can I make such an outrageous claim? It is not a far jump in reality, and much of it began shortly after the founding of our nation. Thomas Jefferson is the primary author of the Colonial Declaration of Independence from the English, and James Madison is the Father of the Constitution as it was written.
Washington District of Colombia was originally and formally declared a corporate entity through the Organic Act of 1871. Every State of the Union is also now an incorporated entity, listed as Foreign Governments under the Organic Act.
Anyone who has ever traveled extensively through the more rural areas of the united States may have noted some counties and cities with a strange notation on the signs as you entered. “Rosedale – Unincorporated”. Why? Because any lawful city or county that is unincorporated, must announce this fact for some unknown reason. DC and all the States however, are all incorporated.
This makes the States subject to the Secretary of State, which is why something so simple as even a Notary Public must ultimately be listed under the State Department which deals with what? Oh yeah. The State Department deals exclusively with foreign governments. No DC is not a foreign government, all of the States are.
We also live in a STATE within the State, in Federal Districts such as those set up for SSI, federal districts for the Federal Reserve banks, and in Zone Improvement Projects or ZIP codes, all of which make us US Citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government under the fourteenth amendment.
In short, as US Citizens, we do not enjoy our constitutionally protected rights, but rather, we “enjoy rights and privileges” which must be contracted through the federal government, and live under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not lawfully, but legally under the color of law.
What Form of Government is Mandated at the Local Level in the United States?
There is no mandatory form of government at the local level. There are some distinctly German names for a few towns in Texas, towns that eventually became cities. The most prevalent these days are New Braunfels and Luckenbach, Texas. Did you ever wonder how these German names came into being in the 1840s when there were very few people there aside from Comanches, Apaches, Mexicans, other Native and/or Indigenous Persons, and some gringos?
New Braunfels Texas was named after an academic by the name of Prince Solms-Braunfels, a student of a man by the name of Charles Fourier, a French Academic who was developing a theory of Communal Socialism, a term some then, and later, more famously, a guy by the name of Karl Marx would call simply Communism.
The communal socialists tried to instigate popular uprisings among the academics and students in both France and Germany in the 1830s and were rapidly shut down by their respective States. Well, Prince Solms-Braunfels determined that a more viable option would be to move the entire movement into the burgeoning and rapidly expanding States of America.
Because in the independent but united States of America, they could legally create a local township run under the auspices of a Communal Socialist system, or build their communist utopian society here in the good old US of A. And that is exactly what they proceeded to do.
An in-depth reading of the writings of Solms Braunfels, Charles Fourier, and the French contingent led by Etienne Cabet will confirm the veracity of these claims. Though it may be noted that you will not find many cities named after the French as their efforts were not only less successful, but far more deadly than the efforts of the Germans.
The Germans, most of whom settled in Lubbock, Sisterdale, and New Braunfels relegated themselves to preaching and studying communal socialism, as opposed to actively practicing it as it had failed them greatly … something that Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, would have greatly benefited by noting.
Can We Build Communist Communities in America Today?
A return to the Constitution as the founders and framers wrote it and constructed our constitutional republic, there would be absolutely nothing to stop the adherents of CHAZ or CHOP from building their communist paradise and living happily ever after, so long as they were not in contradistinction to the Constitutions of the State in which they built.
This of course, presumes also that in our nation of law, they would also legally purchase the lands on which they intended to build. Despite the history of communal socialist communities in the independent but united States of America, this is not limited to the communists, at least not in accordance with the law, as opposed to under the color of law in a federal jurisdiction or federal districts.
If you wanted to build a libertarian society, replete with very little or even no government. (Which would actually be an anarchic society but given the perversion of that term, that is best left for a separate article too) In short, so long as we build at the township level, it does not matter what type of government the people wish to implement, whether a democracy, a republic, anarchic, communist, or even a democrat socialist community.
How Do We Build Our Communist Paradise in the USA?
This is the tricky part because all we have to do is to stand together in a united voice as a united people and demand a return to the original Constitution and the founding principles. I am an avowed and unabashed and unashamed capitalist and social libertarian, and while I would absolutely refuse to live in a communist township, I would happily stand by you to let you build your township the way you want.
We have all been lied to for so long under the color of authority, and under the color of law, that somehow or another we all forgot the most uniting principles of these independent but united States of America, and that is that we are all free to be ourselves. None of us has any lawful right to force our way of life on anyone else in any fashion.
While all this talk goes on about a civil war, police state sanctions and quarantines, and keeping us all divided, we are all losing, and all ending up under the oppressive jackboots of a bloated, inefficient and unlawful federal government. The moment we all stand together in a unified voice as a unified people is the day we all get out from under the jackboot and can begin building whatever it is that we want to build, with like minded people, free to be ourselves.
Let us know what you think please!