In Part I The generl people of the land were "not a party" to the United States Constitution and a vast majority opposed it.
Part II Speaks of the fundamental difference between the government proposed by the United States Constitution and another form of government commonly understood by the people but absent from today's "educated".
Is the Constitution Constitutional?
Many claim modern government is unconstitutional or acts unconstitutionally. It is easy to assume that the products and activities of the present governing powers are in violation of that originating document and undoubtedly it is from time to time. I think a great deal of the turmoil and confusion can be put to rest with a closer look at the Constitution, its originating authority and what it actually did create.
We have seen that the people who were not a party to it, also opposed and objected to it. The states did not have the power of the King which had already become limited and questionable even before the Declaration of Independence.
What authority did the States have to ratify the Constitution? There were rules for its ratification set forth by those who had already signed it. Those men meeting in secret had no more authority to sign such a document into law than the average man on the street. They had already far exceeded their commission by even drafting such a document.
The States owed their existence to their own varied history, charters, compacts and the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were an agreement between the States and in international law each state was as separate to each other as Mexico is to Canada at least with "respect to their municipal laws"1. Any violation of that contract between those separate States would be a breaking of the law of nations.
Pacta servanda sunt. Agreements must be kept
Samuel Adams stated, in August of 1776, "Our Union is complete; our constitution composed, established, and approved. You are now the guardians of your own liberties."
"A constitution is a body of precepts the purpose of which is to control governmental action until modified in some authorized manner."2Constitutions are not always in writing. "For the most part the English Constitution is unwritten."3 If a constitution is created in an unauthorized manner it is in reality a revolution.
"If a constitution expressly provides that it may be amended only in a certain way and another way followed, such and attempted amendment is illegal; but if it is acquiesced in it becomes effective as a peaceful revolution such as took place when the United States Constitution took effect upon the ratification by nine states in spite of the fact that the old Articles of Confederation provided that they should not be amended without unanimous consent of the States." 4
If the Constitution was a revolution who was revolting? And against whom or what were they revolting?
Let us add one more ingredient to this stew of thought. If the Declaration of Independence was signed and communicated to the world because of the "long train of abuses and usurpation of the King and his "history of repeated injuries and usurpation" then it seems that it was the King who was revolting against the People of America not the other way around.
So, what was the real American revolution? Was it the constitution itself? And what was the constitution revolting against? Was it revolting against the lawful agents of government in encouraging them and even coercing them to break their pact of agreement with the people?
I say "lawful agents" because each of those States were republics. They were republics of a much purer nature than is seen today. Very little power was in the hands of the instituted legislative bodies and leaders. The real civil power was in the hands of the individual freeman. They could not rule over their neighbor but were free to rule over themselves.
Ignorance and vanity tempered with apathy and avarice are the greatest allies to tyranny. What is the authority that makes the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments the law of the land and the authority in our lives?
Because of constructive and direct waivers by the states it has become common today to hear the once sovereign states referred to as only "quasi sovereign."
The fact is both the states as corporate bodies of men entrusted with obligations and duties by the people and the private individual, also vested with certain responsibilities and rights by God, have steadily waived those duties and birthrights in exchange for the benefits of a new patron and Benefactor, the organized State. Man has placed his faith and trusts, his allegiance and honor in institutions created by his own hands and the striking of hands in application and acceptance.
"I believe in the United States of America as a government... whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed: a democracy in a republic." April 3, 1918, the new American Creed was read in Congress. Governments are systems of faith and order, trust and homage.
The United States Federal government is a political society existing within the extended jurisdictional authority or dominion of the original Republic or Republics. The largest portion of the Republics' original authority rested in the hands of the "individual freeman" in the realm of his own individual dominion. The authority of the government of the original American Republic was merely "titular," meaning "in name only."
"The term republic, res publica, signifies the state independently of its form of government."5
In a pure republic the people are the state and the government is their servant. This does not mean that the people may take away the rights of their neighbor by majority vote as they do in democracies. Nor can they take away the rights of those servants to choose to serve the will of the people. Both are regulated with the most fundamental right and obligation.
Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Share this
page 
