Wall Street, F.D.A, G.M.O., rBGH, Monsanto, Barack Obama, George Bush, Ben Bernanke, Dick Cheney, Henry Paulson, Bailout, Recession, Depression, Donald Rumsfeld, S.E.C., Federal Reserve

Restore the Republic

The Imperial State

June 6, 2017 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Militia, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

The United States of America is a Constitutional Federal Republic, wherein all power “to execute the Laws of the Union” is vested in the People in their status as Sovereigns.

This is a long-standing principle of our rule of law as the court had stated in Chisolm v Georgia, “[o]ne constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people.”

The Supreme Court later opined, “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” – Yick Wo v Hopkins

A government so corrupt that it does not resemble that, which the Founders devised, has obfuscated the principles of our law. It is now a government that ignores the doctrine that it “deriv[es] its just power from the consent of the governed”, and therefore can only operate as that entity the People have the authority “to alter or to abolish.”

The principles of popular sovereignty, and the explicit recognition in the Constitution that it is only the good People that have the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” would be in full force were it not for a completely corrupt judiciary, and its accomplices in the executive, and the legislative branches. Sadly, many groups and organizations of self-proclaimed patriots have also helped to misinform the public.

Mentioning only a small part of the history and law surrounding the fact that this was meant to be “a government of laws, and not of men,” I am perplexed, but not surprised, by a recent statement by Justice Neil Gorsuch. This newly appointed Supreme Court justice does not share a “cynicism about government and the rule of law”.

I wonder if Justice Gorsuch, or the legal profession in general have read the Constitution and understand what it means???

I can state from personal experience that many lawyers, perhaps the vast majority, do not display any indication that they have read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, or any of the ratifying convention debates. Perhaps, if they did, they would then know “[w]hat *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include.” Reading and comprehending what the Founders thought might just preclude a good deal of the judicial tyranny, to which we are now subject.

What lawyers seem to know is what they are told by an Imperial Judiciary. The legal profession, or as some have noted, a good-ole boys club, is a rubber stamp for abuses of power. Rather than questioning, it acts in accordance with decisions of the court, whether or not the court acts to defend the Constitution.

The rule of law be damned is the philosophy of the judiciary. The mission of those who crave power is to circumvent the sovereignty vested in the good People, and centralize it to suit the crazed and corrupt appetite of the few elite who have attained office through whatever perverted means available.

On tape for all to see and hear, Justice Sotomayor states that the role of the court of appeals is to legislate from the bench. Instead of being impeached, Sotomayor was given a seat on the highest court.

The role of the judiciary, for those who can’t comprehend the clear words of the Constitution is to be an advocate for the strict adherence to the rule of law. There is no wording that grants an authority for interpretations by political activist, power hungry black robed administrators and their co-conspirators.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Who would protect our prime doctrine?

Benjamin Austin wrote, “Certain characters now on the stage, we have reason to venerate, but though this country is now blessed with a Washington, Franklin, Hancock and Adams, yet posterity may have reason to rue the day when their political welfare depends on the decision of men who may fill the places of these worthies. . . .”

Who has followed?

Bush, Clinton, Obama, Roberts, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Cuomo, Bloomberg, Brown, Ryan, Kasich, just a short list of the many for whom “we have [no] reason to venerate”, or trust at any level. Still we re-elect them, or allow them to sit in positions that they consistently corrupt.

We have a judiciary from the lowest to the highest court filled with those who have no respect at all for the Constitution. We have executive and legislative branches around the nation that act in a manner so contrary to both the federal and state Constitutions that their disrespect and lawlessness is immeasurable.

We have lawyers destroying every principle of law in every branch of government. No one has put it more succinctly than journalist, author, and political commentator H.L. Menchen; “All the extravagance and incompetence of our present Government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we’d be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost a half.”

We were warned from the very beginning.

Robert Yates wrote, as one who opposed the ratification, “The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control”. He goes on to comment that we will have “a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible.”

Yates doesn’t “object to the judges holding their commissions during good behavior. I suppose it a proper provision provided they were made properly responsible.” His acceptance of the “good behavior” premise was obviously made at a different time. The character of men and women were so different than “We the People” of today that it seems more myth than reality.

From the Life and Times of Davy Crockett there is this account that is a testament to how far we have fallen from the values of our forbearers.

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davy Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown . It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown . Is that true?’

“‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown , neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him–no, that is not the word–I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“‘Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens–It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

As you read through the Constitution you will note that the Supreme Court was never granted the delegated authority to legislate, grant immunity, change the restrictions and authorities, or redefine “the sense in which [the words were] generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended”, “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written”, “and the accepted meaning [of the words] in that day.”

“We the People” never granted the authority to the state to alter definitions, promote imperial edicts, establish law enforcement agencies, create powers over and above the sovereignty of the citizen, nor deprive the good People of their ultimate power “to execute the Laws of the Union.”

What we have today is an Oligarchy redefining the foundation of this nation to suit its goal of a cowed, and compliant people that believes the fallacy of an omnipotent State with the usurped supremacy to legislate in any manner it so pleases.

The Founders recognized a tool, and incorporated it in our Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, Clause’s 15 & 16. In order that no one could alter, diminish, or obfuscate that powerful authority they enshrined it as an unalienable right in the Second Amendment.

It is not a last resort when the chance of saving the Republic is dim, bur rather a first line of defense against bureaucrats, and black robbed administrators claiming undefined authority, and unlimited powers.

It is the body of the People with the authority to arrest “upon probable cause” any criminal on the streets, in the halls of the legislatures, or sitting on the bench. That body of the People is not restricted by some immunity by fiat, and decrees.

John Locke wrote, “…whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence.”

Are we there, but too complacent to see it, admit it, or fight it?

  1. 2 Responses to “The Imperial State”

  2. I always learn from you. My attention span usually causes me to stop and look up a detail from your post (in this case, Horatio Bunce) leading me to a knew source of knowledge for awhile before returning to finnish your blog. In this case I found myself at feedotorg. It was a page called “Not Yours To Give” When I return to your work I learn much more. Thank you for your hard work and inspiration. Please don’t stop because We need you.

    By FreeMe on Jun 9, 2017

  3. FreeMe – Thank you for your kind words. It’s always heartwarming to hear such kind and uplifting comments.

    By Nick on Jun 20, 2017

You must be logged in to post a comment.