Archive for the ‘Founding Documents’ Category
by Nicholas Testaccio
“I have proved, sir, that not only some power is given in the constitution to restrain, and even to subject the press, but that it is a power totally unlimited; and may certainly annihilate the freedom of the press, and convert it from being the palladium of liberty to become an engine of imposition and tyranny. It is an easy step from restraining the press to making it place the worst actions of government in so favorable a light, that we may groan under tyranny and oppression without knowing from whence it comes.” - Cincinnatus, no. 2, TO James Wilson, November 8, 1787
Arthur Lee, using the pseudonym Cincinnatus, wrote what he feared might become of the press if it did not hold some guarantee of a right to be free from government intervention. He was, like many of our Founders, an astute observer of history and what the record held. Government, that is to say men and women jealous of power, are apt to strike at every measure of liberty and the institutions that are held as safeguards against the designs of the tyrant.
The Bill of Rights begins “Congress shall make no law respecting *** the freedom of speech, or of the press”. Despite his fear of a corruption made of the press without some protection, and contrary to Mr. Wilson’s assurance that congress lacked any power to influence or control the press, we are now subject to an institution void of conscience, and a willing conspirator to the worst of men. Those, sometimes faceless bureaucrats or worse still, those we elect to represent our interests in the halls of the legislatures.
Lee wanted, as did many others, a written assurance against the reaches of government to perform as so many others had in the past. Wilson noted that the law written as it was, gave no power to the state to make any encroachments on the press. Regardless of the lessons of history and the protection sought against the contrivances of power seekers, we have been witness to a press willing to collude with those in such positions that they may lend a hand in the subjugation of the people.
“Fake news” is a term to which we were introduced by former president Donald Trump in his run-up to the White House, and then again during his presidency. There would be a long list, far too long for this column, to enumerate. The corporate media made a display of lies and propaganda that would make German propagandist Joseph Goebbels proud. Obvious lies, distortion, and failure to correct mistakes and disinformation are legion. Today they continue along the path of either thinking they are legitimate, or they are an instrument for the destruction of this Republic.
The common man neither has the time, nor the resources to investigate and corroborate what comes from the corporate press. Instead, for the most part, the average citizen takes as fact the distortions that come out of institutions that were meant to be a check on government. I must wonder why it is that the continuation of lies spewed out from the corporate media, still a majority of the population takes for granted that what they read in the New York Times, or regurgitated from CNN to MSMBC is taken as trusted sources of information.
Repeatedly, false claims, such as Russian interference in the 2016 election, the corporate media played along with the lies that were common out of the mouths of people such as Adam Schiff, and Hilary Clinton. In the face of the Mueller report, the corporate media played along by failing to admit that they promoted propaganda in order to assist in the aversion to revealing the truth. A twist here, a coverup there, a lie designed to obfuscate, and the truth vanishes into the ether.
Accuse your opponent of the crimes you’ve committed, and the falsehoods become part of the mindset that distorts reality. The “free press” is quite adept at concealing the truth if they believe it will help their side.
What we should do is examine the facts around Georgia, and Michigan for some insight as to the corruption that is rampant throughout the corporate media.
Let’s start with the false narrative that Trump brought Sixty suits to the courts that were dismissed. Trump brought one election contest, and that case revolved around the Georgia election. All the other cases were ancillary and brought by others attempting to find the truth. Trump’s election contest was never heard.
Georgia law is, that if you file an election contest, a court must be assigned, and within five days set a hearing, and within ten days hold that hearing. Georgia violated its own law by not setting a hearing, and then negating a chance for a hearing to be held. It set the hearing date after January 6th, which made it moot at that point. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Trump filed an appeal stating that Fulton County would not abide by the rules for an election contest. The Georgia supreme court essentially avoided the issue by referring it to the court of appeals that never did anything about taking up the claims. A brief summary of the election contest asked what amounted to constitutional questions, such as were there only constitutionally qualified people who voted; were there only constitutionally qualified ballots that were correctly cast; and were the ballots canvassed in a constitutionally qualified manner? I should point out that the state legislature is the authority in creating the law surrounding the presidential election, and the questions posed in the Trump election contest were based on what Georgia law required.
Trump lawyers presented over Four-Hundred sworn affidavits in support of that election contest. It was backed up by details, data, and documents. For instance, there were some Ten-Thousand people who were dead before their ballots were sent in. To put a frightening point on this, Mark Meadows is now under indictment for requesting that Georgia show and publish the data that was sought in the complaint.
Simply remember ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas testaccio
The document that we now label as the Declaration of Independence, reminds us that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”
The US constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land, defines this country as a constitutional Federal Republic, wherein all public officials swear an oath to protect and defend “a Republican form of Government,” required by Article IV, Section 4.
For decades now this Republic has been under attack, with little to no relief. The intent of those who fought for and established this country was to create a nation with a unique form of government. Government of, by, and for the people has been the tune for which we were supposed to operate. To most those words mean nothing at all. Just Seven words that define the basic function of our rule of law, yet that simple statement is incomprehensible for the public at large.
Empires come and go over the centuries, but the Founders of this nation gave us the building blocks that would support a lasting enterprise. Paul Simon wrote,
“I have squandered my resistance for a pocket full of Mumbles
Such are promises.
All lies and jest.
Still a man hears what he wants to hear.
And disregards the rest.”
We have squandered all that was bequeathed to us for lies that we feed on from reprobates, scoundrels, and indeed criminals. This is a nation of laws based on “a Republican form of Government.” Over the years we have allowed our representatives to morph this into a democracy, in which mob rule is used to undermine the basic principles of our Law, and unfortunately our liberty.
We support and defend the likes of Bernie Sanders, an avowed communist, on the pretense that his politics are a matter of free speech. Sanders is a United States senator who took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. That oath meant nothing to him, nor to the people who keep voting him back into office.
The terms democracy, socialism, and a host of dribble bandied about by not only those we elect to protect and defend our rule of law, but also those in the media, both corporate and “free” are intended to eviscerate and end our nation. Those who are labeled to the left, progressives, or liberals are allowed to function in the halls of our legislatures when they've clearly committed crimes against the Law, and therefore the people.
Where are the patriots? Those who would muster on the Green to face down the forces of tyranny. Vince Lombardi, the great Packers coach, is credited with saying “The best defense is a good offense.” Again, words and advice that are lost in the rumble of confusion that has become the operational status of our country.
I spend my days rummaging through words of men and women who appeared to be completely devoid of any knowledge pertaining to the function of this Federal Republic. The current mindset among those who profess to be of the patriotic community appears to be that of “prepare for the worst and hope for the best.” Of the numerous YouTube, Rumble, and other enterprise popping up, the paradigm appears to be for bringing truth in news without any regard for the fact that most will do nothing to protect their rights, their families, or their communities. What good is it to know about potential dangers if the only move we are capable of is to prepare rather than deter?
On any given day from the corporate press, you will hear absolute nonsense. There appears to be no truth, nor apprehension towards spewing out blatant falsehoods. Notably, while the “free press” appears for the most part to be engaged in the journalistic enterprise of relaying the facts it stops there. Hours of relaying facts, and reams of papers detailing potentially catastrophic events, and sadly explaining often devious acts of government officials lend little to putting an end to what they all warn for that, for which we must prepare.
The former president, Trump, invoked Title 42, which gave him the authority to prevent an influx of migrants. On May 11th, the emergency status associated with Title 42 came to an end. With that has come the intended invasion of some 1,000,000 migrants. And this is just an extension of the invasion that has taken place since the Biden administration came to office. Estimates of more than 5,000,000 illegals, and numerous terrorists hidden within their ranks, have come to our country.
We were warned of the impending invasion, and prior to that, the “patriots” kept us up on the millions of illegals, and the influx of military age men and potential terrorists. Yet, all that was done to stop the assault on our Homeland was chatter about putting “patriots” into positions of “power” sometime down the road.
Before I go any further I wanted to point a finger. There is a period of time that is referred to as “the summer of love” in the year 2020. During those months the left took to the streets, pillaged, plundered, and even murdered with little pushback from even law enforcement. Where were the patriots?
The patriots, Charlie, Ben, Dan, and a host of others are spewing out what is nothing more than impotent rhetoric. While cities burned, and that includes parts of our capital, they were telling us that they opposed violence. I want to call them out on this particular issue. What they actually oppose is our ability to fight back and defend our lives and property. They are fine accepting the violence that many had to endure and are still experiencing because the left has made it a point of prosecuting anyone who dares to defend themselves.
I want to make a point of law in hopes that someone will spread the word and it will wind up on the desk of some congressman, senator, local representative, or perhaps a talk radio show will bring up this crucial point of law. This is a ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
Words have specific meanings, and when placed together, those words form a thought, an idea, convey a story, or promote a proposition. In law, the combination of words in a clause cannot be construed to mean something other than what they meant at the time the law was enacted.
In the year 1776, a committee of the Continental Congress was formed to write a document explaining the need “for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth…” their rightful place.
Chosen to write the draft for what could have been the death sentence for its signatories, Thomas Jefferson composed what should be considered the foundation, by which all the people of this World ought to live. In it are the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
When “A Declaration” was written, slavery was an institution that existed in, not only the colonies, but also, around the World. Jefferson himself, was a slave owner as were other members of the Congress. Slavery was not unique to the America’s. It was an institution that existed for centuries. The Bible speaks of it, telling the story of the Hebrew nation as slaves to the empire of the Egyptians. Slavery existed as part of every culture, nation, and empire. However, in this timeless document that we now refer to as “The Declaration of Independence”, the Congress enacted the words “that all men are created equal.” What they did not agree to, and should be obvious to all, is that all men remain equal throughout their lives. Herein lies one of our problems. The misunderstanding of the words as they come together in a sentence, and in this case a legal document, that provides us with a specific line of thought.
From “A Declaration” to the U.S. Constitution, the people of this once great nation have made it their folly to misinterpret and to misunderstand the rule of law. This, as I've stated in the past, is a constitutional Federal Republic. Those we elect or appoint to perform a specific duty are bound by an oath of office. That office holds its allegiance to the law as it is written not as it has been twisted and bent in order that those seeking power may retain and enhance that power.
England was a monarchy, as it remains today, although the power of the monarchy is greatly reduced from the time of King George. Again, monarchies were the rule of the day when our revolution began. Kings and Queens were not elected, but rather, they were born to their positions. A “Divine Right” as it was known, because of the accepted belief that God placed the individual in the position of authority. It was the doctrine of the time.
However, those Fifty-Six men who signed their own death warrant when they put their name to the Declaration, thought differently. The words in the document do not reflect a contradiction of the world in which they knew, and we, today, seem incapable of understanding. While we can look back and second guess those men, I can assure you that there is a mindset today that would own slaves simply for the pleasure of imposing their authority.
Today, agenda, and propaganda are the norm, reality escapes most who live at a time so distant from the centuries past that it does not seem logical to disparage those who risked it all so that the words of “A Declaration” could come to life. This is the time that we must accept that what we have been taught is designed to oppress, rather than enlighten.
Jefferson wrote “that all men are created equal”, he did not write that all men remain equal, attain equality, or are able to live as all others do. Even to the casual observer, or those who have been fooled into thinking that they learned something worthwhile by attending a university of progressive professors, should comprehend that the words in the Declaration did not reflect some utopian state, wherein everyone goes about their merry way, with all the privileges, wealth, and prosperity of the neighbor across the street, or across the nation.
The propaganda spewed out by the intelligentsia is more in tune with a desire to show themselves as superior, rather than reflecting on the reality of the time, and even today. The nonsense of the “anointed” who cast their superiority, can be easily debunked when we examine the word “unalienable.”
At the time of the writing of “A Declaration” the word unalienable meant that it could not be regulated, taken, or relinquished. If we allow one or even a group of individuals to abdicate a right, we have opened the floodgates to tyrannical government determining that since one has abdicated the right another must follow in that the right is not absolute. Even with a firm explanation of the word, there are members of our legislatures that believe that our rights are not absolute, and that they can regulate them and often place such a burden on them as to rule them out of existence.
So, as we go through time from the creation of this nation to today, we must realize that there are aspects of our law that have been twisted and corrupted. Over the last several decades, with the intent of minimizing our Constitution, the idea of a living document has come into play. In a living document, how do we hold our government to the limited delegated authorities that we assigned?
This was intended to be a nation of popular sovereignty. As a sovereign, you and I claim all the authority of any sovereign state in the world. We claim the right of self-defense, immunity from the state, and therefore a right to be tried by a jury of our peers. The intent was the guarantee that the state could not place its heavy hand upon those ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
The charge of Treason has been bandied about for some time now in light of government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. After years of listening to the charge cast, I have decided to examine the issue in order to ascertain whether I could make the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article III, § 3, Cl. 1 – “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
The Constitution is clear as to how such an indictment might come about. To start I must ask the following questions:
Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization engaged in “levying War” against the United States?
Does war include covert acts, propaganda, sabotage, and acts subverting our ability to wage a war and defense of the nation?
Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization who “in adhering to their Enemies, [is] giving them Aid and Comfort”?
Considering the unique form of government in the United States, do the definitions of “levying War”, “Aid and Comfort” expand the criteria by function and implication of our law?
Does disarming “the body of the people” rise to the level of treason?
In his commentaries, William Blackstone wrote, “Treason, proditio, in it's very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith. It therefore happens only between allies, *** This is looked upon as proceeding from the same principle of treachery in private life, as would have urged him who harbours it to have conspired in public against his liege lord and sovereign: *** [W]hen disloyalty so rears it's crest, as to attack even majesty itself, it is called by way of eminent distinction high treason, alta proditio”.
Sir Michael Foster, Discourse on High Treason. “High Treason being an Offence committed against the Duty of Allegiance, it may be proper before I proceed to the several Species of that Offence which will be the Subject of this Discourse, to consider From whom, and To whom Allegiance is due.” Foster goes on to explain that “Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member”.
Foster wrote his Discourse in 1762, a time when monarchs ruled, and the not yet formed United States was nothing more than a hope and dream of a few who wished to throw off the bonds of allegiance to royalty. Someone who came to power in birth under the divine right of kings. Those who claimed the loyalty of the people simply by being born into the right family.
In 1776 a new nation was formed with the unique concept “That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, *** That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”. Within those words are the construct of a government of, by, and for the People. It was an idea so novel as to foster a revolution here and in nations so inspired by our Declaration. Sadly, in today’s world, the principle of the rule of law for this nation has died through years of judicial and legislative twists that “evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism”. Be that as it may, this country remains, in the rule of law, a Nation “constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people”.- Chisholm v Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 457
The United States Constitution requires an oath of allegiance that we have assigned to every officer, from dog catcher, to jurist, to representative, to the president. In so doing we bind those public officials, and ourselves to adhere to the powers and restrictions laid out in the Constitution. The contract and the rule are pointless if both parties avoid and deny the force of law as it was laid out in plain language.
That “the Supreme Power” be the doctrine of this nation, it is only logical that the people constructed the State, and therefore the central government subordinate to the State. In 1776 when the Colonies “dissolve[d] the political bands” with England, they created a unique nation in law by vesting authority in the People who would be the caretakers of their freedom, rights, and liberty. The first act of the Continental Congress was to lay out the doctrine of law, by which all law is to follow the fundamental principal that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
In simplest terms, this is a nation based on popular sovereignty. Everyone owes allegiance to the Constitution created by “We the People”. The sovereign, in international law, claims the right to prosecute, to defend, to wage war, and ultimately to control all that is within his/her sphere of influence. As a sovereign, I do not consent to any “statute *** extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”. - McCullough v. Commonwealth Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102
While our form of government is unique throughout the world, it is nonetheless a fact of law instituted and defined in our first two documents of Law: The Declaration, and the Constitution. They clearly establish that in our nation, “Sovereignty, is of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of the law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to agencies of government, sovereignty itself, remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”. – Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
To protect and defend the principle function of a nation so fashioned in the matter that “the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people” there must be a method for caretaking. Of course, it ...
1 Comment »
by Nicholas Testaccio
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” – Patrick Henry, Richmond, Virginia March 23, 1775
History tells us that men are more likely to sit quietly and suffer rather than to right the wrongs that are cast upon them. They make no allowance for what their docile attempts at reconciliation may have on their posterity. “Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, ‘If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace’; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.” – Thomas Paine
Over the
years, I have been called many derogatory names for my stand on the Second
Amendment. I’ve been called an idiot, a dolt, moron, and even a traitor. On
more than one occasion I’ve been told to go back to my masters. Nope! I’ve not
heard that from anyone who wants to take our guns, but rather supposed
supporters of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That group of so-called
patriots, as far as I can tell, know little to nothing about the subject. They
parrot much of the false doctrine promoted by groups such as the NRA, and GOA.
In fact, I was asked to leave a group for speaking about what the Second
Amendment clearly states; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State…” It does not go on to say that we mean
only the individual, but in the context of the Law as the Framers knew it to
be, the individual was ultimately responsible for acquiring and maintaining his
“weapons of war”, in order to fulfill his requirement to be armed and trained
in the Lawful Militia.
When I started my journey, the first thing I asked was, “What do those words, "A well regulated Militia" mean?” I was told by members of the NRA that they meant nothing. So, the men who debated, and understood the meaning of the words that they placed in the document, were what? Were the words irrelevant? Did someone say, let’s add some words to confuse people? Was the intent to make the document a twisted wrangle of unexplainable non-sense so the good People would eventually lose their rights?
The Constitution begins with “We the People”. It then goes on to delegate certain limited powers to the federal government and impose duties and restrictions on the States. So that the People are firmly in charge, the Framers clearly placed in our hands the authority to enforce the rule of law. Over the years, the judiciary, and its esquire’s have muddled what the Constitution clearly states. Warnings came from those who opposed the Constitution that the judiciary would usurp what the Framers enshrined, and then take justice from the people and centralize it to, what has become an oligarchy.
In debating
the rule of law, I’ve noted over the years that it comes down to one recurring
fault, the People have lost the concept of a free society in which they are the
ultimate authority. It eludes even the most well read among us. In fact, they
will argue assiduously for their own demise by citing every so-called expert
who knows so little as to refer to this as a democracy wherein the branches of
government should decide what the Constitution says.
Thomas
Jefferson wrote the seminal document on the relationship between the people and
the governments they form in order to protect their rights. To some this means
that we have a body that dictates and enforces the law. In our form of
government, what the Founders did was to create a vehicle for the legitimate
enforcement of a set of rules that We the People have prescribed. The
underlying fact is that government was never given any authority to prosecute
without the overriding consent of the People. We have a Grand Jury that
investigates a complaint in order to determine whether a wrong was committed. If
that wrong can legitimately be established, and if that suit can be rectified
to the satisfaction of the person who has been violated then justice is served.
If the
violation cannot be rectified, and the perpetrator is not readily within the
grasp of a sheriff, or marshal, then the Militia is called forth “to execute
the Laws of the Union”. Once the perpetrator is in custody, a Petit Jury is
empaneled so that the facts, and the law may be examined in order to make a
final determination of whether or not a harm has been inflicted, whether or not
the accused is indeed the perpetrator, and if the facts reconcile the complaint.
In the case
of some supposed crime against the State, in other words if a statute that
originates from some limited authority granted by the People, then the Petit
Jury also has the duty to examine the law, and make the determination on the
constitutionality of the law in question. For it is We the People who are the
author and source of the Law. As Justice Joseph Story wrote in his commentaries
on the Constitution, "It is to be
interpreted, as all other solemn instruments are, by endeavoring to ascertain the
true sense and meaning of all the terms and we are neither to narrow them, nor
to enlarge them, by straining them from their just and natural import, for the
purpose of adding to, or diminishing its powers, or bending them to any
favorite theory or dogma or party. It is the language of the people, to be
judged of according to common sense, and not by mere theoretical reasoning. It
is not an instrument for the mere private interpretation of any particular men.
The people have established it and spoken their will; and their will, thus
promulgated, is to be obeyed as the supreme law."
This is a
Constitutional Federal Republic despite the constant repeating of the term
democracy. It is based on a series of laws that “The Senators and Representatives *** and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and ...
No Comments »
Recent Form Posts