Is Government the Answer?

Slavery is Alive and Well in America

The general theme followed by the Democratic Party was expressed by Alexander Hamilton . . .

“In the general course of human nature, a power over man’s substance amounts to a power over his will.”   Federalist Papers, No. 79

Is Government the Answer . . . ?

Just saw the documentary “Hillary’s America” . . . Excellent!  The Plantation is safe in the hands of the Democrats.

The philosophy of the Democratic Party for success is founded in the dependency of society on the charity of a central government.  The democratic voting block is dependent mainly by those on welfare, food stamps, free education, free health care and the like.  The democrats fight for bringing in immigrants by the tens of thousands, making citizens out of the thousands of illegals in our country,  the most of which are dependent upon government and enrolling them into the democratic voting block.  The chains on these slaves is their dependence on government for their substance.

Especially in the area of education the enrollment of the children into government schools is essential to continue the socialistic ideals and programs that government is the “savior” of America.  Of course on the economic scales on the other side, the democratic party balances out these programs with the increase of the federal debt with paper money and increased taxes on the working class.  The Democratic plan is to create a strong Central Government that controls the States and the people.

The American people can fight back for freedom with education, understanding the fundamentals of our Republican government.  The States must take to heart the subtle reminder pointed our in Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in Obamacare: “The States are separate and independent sovereigns.  Sometimes they have to act like it.”

As its opposite, the Republican program is one that proposes a “limited” government that was designed by the Founding Fathers.  The central government was designed for “external” purposes only.  National defense against foreign and internal disputes, treaties with foreign nations, and regulating commerce between the States and foreign countries.  “The powers relative to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concerns the lives, liberties and prosperity of the state.” (Madison)

In Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in M’Culloch v. State, (17 US 316, 412) he directs us to the law making (legislative) authority of the federal government, “the 8th section enumerates the powers of congress.”  As outlined in the United States Constitution, they are defined and limited: “The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

“Turning to the enumeration of the powers granted to Congress by the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, . . .   The last paragraph of the section, which authorizes Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary to proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, is not the delegation of a new and independent power, but simply provision for making effective the powers theretofore mentioned. The construction of that paragraph was precisely stated by Chief Justice Marshall in these words:  “We think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional –”  a statement which has become the settled rule of construction.” (Kansas v. Colorado, 206 US 46)

Justice Brewer continues in discussing the range of powers delegated to the Federal Government, focusing on Article I, Section 8, clause 17 and also bring in the language of Article IV, Section 3: “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, . . .,”  concluding: “But clearly it does not grant to Congress any legislative control over the states, and must so far as they are concerned be limited to authority over the property belonging to the United States within their limits.”

As we are faced with two completely different candidates for our highest administrative office this election year (2016), Hillary by far the most dangerous as she continues to threaten the people with the communistic programs of Obama.  The election of Donald Trump puts an individual in control of a machine built by the legal profession and special interests.  His value is found in his understanding of the “deal” and repairing the failed commercial agreements with other nations.  The intricacies found inside the government are handled by his ability to surround himself with the right people that can deal with the web.

The opposition to Mr. Trump comes not only from the left of the democratic party but also the left of the republican party who operate under the cover of the conservative label.  It is coming from special interests who have bought into the social system of government.

The direction of our government is dependent upon the outcome of this election.  Whether it will continue to degenerate into a total welfare state, or whether this direction will be arrested and turned around.  The one thing that is certain, those who want the free-ride paid for by the labors of others will continue to grow unless the “ladder” is set back up and opportunity is made available for them to conduct the outcome of their future placed in their hands.  Our defense will be found in our knowledge of how the Republican system works and a strong commitment to its success in protecting our freedoms and our natural rights.

Some Basic Fundamentals

“Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.”

Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 27

“. . . [I]t (fundamental principles) impressed with force the great truth that sound government must proceed upon sound, unchanging principles of justice and moderation, to which reference should be always made in deciding upon the wisdom of any proposed legislative policy.”  (Circuit Judge A.H. Reid, Marquette Law Review, Vol. 1, issue 4 (1917) p. 186)

As discussed earlier, one of the fundamentals that has been sorely neglected is the basic formula of our system of government.  The founders expressly rejected the democratic form in favor of a republican.

“It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. . . . .  These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; . . . ”  (www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html)

One feature that is evident in the difference between the two opposing forms is found in understanding the position of the “sovereign.”  In a democracy “sovereignty” is found in the majority, whereas in a republic, “sovereignty” is in the individual.

Individual Sovereignty and Delegation

“Sovereignty is the authority to which there is politically no superior.”

72 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 4

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What kind of government did you give us?” To which he replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

From the Debates on the Constitution (The Library of America), “Z” Replies to Franklin’s Speech.  In this letter (No Wonder He Shed A Tear, 1787) the writer addressed Franklin’s concerns about the Constitution noting that Franklin would “never approve it” yet in signing Franklin confessed; “In these sentiments I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no FORM of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered.”  Commenting still on Dr. Franklin’s remarks, “Z” continues: “Even a bad form of government may, in the Doctor’s opinion, be well administered — for, says he, there is no form of government, but what may be made a blessing to the people, if well administered.”

“Z” points out: “Does not every man know, that without a check, in any hands, is tyranny; and such powers, in the hands of even good men, so infatuating is the nature of it, will probably be wantonly, if not tyrannically exercised. . . . any form may be well administered, and thus be made a blessing to the people, that there ought to be at least, an express reservation of certain inherent unalienable rights, . . .  If the rights of conscience, for instance, are not sacredly reserved to the people, what security will there be . . .?”

The concerns of Franklin and “Z” were further expressed by Franklin: “Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men.  They are … the love of  power and the love of money.  Separately each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent affects.  Place before the eyes of such men, a post of honor that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it….

“And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters?  It will not be the wise and moderate; the fittest for the trust.  It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits.  These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers.  And these too will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation, for their vanquished competitors of the same spirit, and endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.

“Besides these evils, sir, tho’ we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be long continuance.  Reason will never be wanting for proposed augmentations.  And there will always be a party for giving more to them.  Hence as all history informs us, there has been in every state and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and the governed; the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less.  And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the prince, or enslaving of the people.  Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of the prince constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more.  The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater the need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure.

“… But this catastrophe, I think, may be long delayed, if in our proposed system we do not sow the seeds of contention, faction, and tumult, by making our posts of honor, places of profit.” (James Beck, The Constitution of the United States, The Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy, 1787)

Because of the concerns expressed by “Z” in his letter, there was a push for the inclusion of a “Bill of Rights” amending the Constitution.  Alexander Hamilton opposed the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.  In his letter to the people of New York (paper No. 84); “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need to particular reservations.”  Hamilton, in his day, expressed a truth, however, he had not the vision of our day.  Even with a Bill of Rights, there are forces within our governments which have taken the position of expanding the limited provisions of their expressed powers.

If the fundamental element of the Constitution, in this area was understood and adhered to there would be no need for a Bill of Rights.  Chief Justice John Marshall, a contemporary of Hamilton, followed Hamilton’s reasoning expressing this in his opinion recorded in M’Culloch v. State of Maryland (17 US 316); “This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.”  This would be true IF our government was “well administered.”

Following the election campaign I take notice of the remarks of Mr. Khan made at the DNC convention, challenging Mr. Trump to read the Constitution.  It is one thing to read the Constitution, it is another thing to understand the Constitution.

Understanding the Constitution

“The  language  of the Constitution,  as has been well said, could  not be  understood without  reference to the Common Law.  1 Kent. Comm. 336”,  Kepner v. U.S.  195 U.S. 100 at 125.

Justice Bradley, writing in Moore v. United States (1875): “. . .[W]e know of no system of law by which it should be governed other than the common law. That is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.

Justice Matthews, Smith v. Alabama (1888): “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”  This one essential fundamental has been reaffirmed numerous decisions by the Supreme Court; “In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”  U.S. v. Wong Kim. Ark. 169 U.S. 649.

“In order to ascertain the scope and meaning of the Seventh Amendment, resort must be had to the appropriate rules of the common law established at the time of the adoption of that constitutional provision in 1791.”  Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 350 , 18 S.Ct. 620; Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 288 , 50 S.Ct. 253, 70 A.L.R. 263 (Justice Sutherland, Dimick v. Schist, 1935)

I would address the question to Mr. Khan, ‘do you understand the common law?’  Let me go out on a limb and address this label of a “golden star family.”  It is portrayed by the government that this label is given to those families who have sacrificed members of their family in the service of their country.  These families have sacrificed, however, it was a voluntary choice made by those in the armed forces to put their lives on the line.  If you chose to classify the families as “golden” that is fine, however, to equate the sacrifice with the safety of our country and freedom, NO!  Their sacrifice was made at the request of the government for interests of certain powers in government, not the Nation.  Since the conflict experienced by our Nation in the war of 1812, there has been no other conflict which this Nation has engaged in that was dedicated to securing and defending our freedom and liberty.  No, not even the Civil War!

Do we understand the Constitution when the contract clearly states that “We the People . . . in order to . . . provide for the common defence . . .”  (Found in the Preamble); also, Article I, Section 15: “To provide for the calling forth the Militia to . . . repel Invasions; . . .”  As concerning the use of military forces to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations, the Constitution is silent.  No powers were delegated to the government to condone aggression.

Circuit Judge Reid, continuing in the Law Review, interjects a fundamental in understanding the Constitution; “The symmetry and efficiency of our common law in producing justice has been a direct result of the fact that the common law is based upon the fundamental principles of right, from which fundamental principles the course of reasoning always begins, in preparing the way for the correct decision of the case in hand.” (p. 186)

Justice Henry Brown”We are bound to interpret the  Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”  Mattox v. U.S. 156 U.S. 237 at 243.;  Chief Justice Morrison Waite in Minor v. Happersett.  1874  (21 Wall. 162); “the Constitution must be construed in connection with the other parts of the instrument and in the light of the surrounding circumstances.”  Justice Antonin Scalia continued that standard believing that one must look first to the actual text of the Constitution and then apply the historical meaning the words had at the time the original language was adopted.

When the Founders used the phrase “law” in the text of the Constitution, they knew that is was the “common law” not the civil law.  In an early opinion written by Circuit Justice Baldwin:  “It is therefore a self evident proposition, that the jurisprudence of the United States is not founded in the civil law, . . .  Where the common law was the law of the land, the civil law was held to be the law of admiralty.”  (Bains v. The James and Catherine, 2 Federal Cases, No. 756)  Let there be no misunderstanding, that when the Constitution addresses the “law of the land” in Article VI it refers to the Common Law.

So to Mr. Khan and others who pretend to hide behind the Constitution, it would be best to devote some time in learning about the Common Law.

“Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights . . . .”  Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 27

In this area there exists pages of commentary on civil rights, however, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution do not speak of “civil” rights.  The Declaration of Independence addresses “inalienable” rights; “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, . . .”  A Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution and in the tenth amendment, the government is reminded 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.”

In the Utah State Constitution there is a Declaration of Rights in which Article I, Section 1 calls “inherent and inalienable rights.”  The term “civil” rights is absent from these contracts.  The reason is that civil right are granted by the governing authority, and as such can be take away at their pleasure.  Justice Field, concurring in the Court’s opinion in Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City (111 US 746 [1884]) made this separation clear:  “As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’-that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement-‘that all men are endowed’-not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.’-that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime-‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these’-not grant them, but secure them- ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’”

The sacred nature and protection of the natural and inalienable rights of the People are set in stone.  “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”  Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, Miranda v. Arizona.  And again in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of Col.;  “As stated by this Court in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, “One’s right to life, liberty, and property . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’

“A citizen’s constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.”

Chief Justice Warren, in this opinion, notes the comments of Judge Doyle of the District Court for Colorado, holding;  “The protection of constitutional rights is not to be approached either pragmatically or expediently, and though the fact of enactment of a constitutional provision by heavy vote of the electorate produces pause and generates restraint, we cannot, true to our oath, uphold such legislation in the face of palpable infringement of rights.”

education is the best defense against tyranny.

“The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

Chief Justice John Roberts (2012)

NFIB

v.

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS

“The United States are sovereign as to all the powers of Government actually surrendered: Each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them: . . .”  (Justice Iredell, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793)

We have come face to face with the proverbial “junction in the road.” This election (2016) is called the lesser of two evils. In my view, the choices are clear; this country’s commander and chief will either be directed by a dedicated socialist, who has difficulty with the truth.  A couple that have for best part of their lives in the political field, have survived and built a fortune from granting political favors while in Arkansas and in Washington .  Witnessing the current confessions made to the FBI, Congress and the people and then turning around and denying her activity, confirms the reports and documentaries on the past illegal activities of the Clintons in both settings.

Benjamin Franklin’s warning to the Constitutional Convention in 1787: “Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men.  They are … the love of  power and the love of money.  Separately each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent affects.  Place before the eyes of such men, a post of honor that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it….

“And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters?  It will not be the wise and moderate; the fittest for the trust.  It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits.  These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers.  And these too will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation, for their vanquished competitors of the same spirit, and endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.

“Besides these evils, sir, tho’ we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be long continuance.  Reason will never be wanting for proposed augmentations.  And there will always be a party for giving more to them.  Hence as all history informs us, there has been in every state and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and the governed; the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less.  And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the prince, or enslaving of the people.  Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of the prince constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more.  The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater the need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure.

“… But this catastrophe, I think, may be long delayed, if in our proposed system we do not sow the seeds of contention, faction, and tumult, by making our posts of honor, places of profit.”   Delivered in Philadelphia in the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Clinton family administration demonstrates the fulfillment of that warning and how the admonition of Franklin has been hidden in the history books and ignored.

A Clinton administration would only be a continuation of the Obama policies dedicated to the depletion of the position of our country among other nations.  In defiance to the command of the Constitution to defend the people and nation from ever consuming dictatorial philosophies of government, past administrations, republican and democratic, are driving our nation to the far left, making socialism the topic of the day.

The emergence of Donald Trump is showing that the status quo is not acceptable and the people are ready for a change of course.  Up and until this time the Nation has been lead by individuals who are either career politicians or lawyers, or both.  We had the opportunity in 2012 to elect a “business” oriented candidate, but failed.  We are now given that opportunity again.  It is argued that Mr. Trump hasn’t the qualities of a “commander and chief” to lead this Nation. . . .  Obama or Hillary have those qualifications?  This Nation over the decades, lead by “professionals” has gotten us nowhere.  They have led this Nation into tangled alliances, many with other nations that do not like us.  We have sacrificed the lives of our young men and women in wars that have nothing to do with the defense of this nation.

We have been defending the interests of other nations at a cost beyond our budget limits, forcing this Nation deeper in debt.  Mr. Trump is committed to correcting this and forcing those nations who want our resources committed to the defense of their interests to “foot” the bill.  Also, Mr. Trump is committed to requiring the members of the United Nations to pay up on their over due memberships or kick the UN out of this country.

Mr. Trump is interested in acquiring the assistance of other nations in stemming the tide of terrorism sponsored by ISIS or the radical arm of Islam.  He speaks to the friendship with Russia and others in doing this, and that is good thing.  He is for strengthening our borders; you can’t have a country without borders.  He is for “legal” immigration . . . what’s so evil about that?  He is for stemming the tide of dangerous drugs that have damaged the lives of many . . . Clintons won’t like that!

Of the two “evils” Mr. Trump out shines the other.  In my opinion he is the silver lining.

II

In either case and to pacify the opposition two either one, the salvation of this Nation rests with the education of the people of the States.  To recognize the position that the States have in relationship to the Federal Government.  To again quote the “secret” exposed by Chief Justice Roberts; ““The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

For the most part the States missed this advise given by Justice Roberts.  Remember that the Federal Government is a creation of the States, not the other way around.  The creature cannot exceed the creator.  Presently the States are bowing at the feet of the Federal Government, when they should  stand their ground and take control by putting the Federal Government back in its place as a servant of the People and the States and not big brother.

The Federal Government was designed to be a “limited” government with specific “delegated” duties outlined in the Constitution.  These limitations were not to be transcended.  The Federal Government was established for the operation of external operation of the Nation, everything else was delegated to the States or remain with the People.  As noted by James Madison at the Constitutional Convention; “. . . The objects of the Union, he thought (Mr. Sherman) were few.  1. defence against foreign danger.  2.  against internal disputes & a resort to force.  3.  Treaties with foreign nations.  4.  regulating foreign commerce, & drawing revenue from it. . . .”;  (Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention  of 1787)

Again, James Madison stated in “The Federalist Papers No. 45”:  “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which the last power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers relative to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concerns the lives, liberties and prosperity of the state.”

In “The Federalist No. 23” Hamilton also stated: “The principle purposes to be answered by the Union are these – The common defence of the members – the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks – the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States – the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”

Our Federal Government has taken the silent position and expanded certain clauses within the frame work of the Constitution in order to increase their power.  For example, the commerce clause: “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and wth the indian tribes.”

Page Smith in his documentary on the Constitution notes the remarks of Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden: “The subject to be regulated is commerce; and our constitution being, as was aptly said at bar, one of enumeration, and not of definition, to ascertain the extent of the power it become necessary to settle the meaning of the word.”

Over the decades government has argued that anything that has a direct effect on commerce is within the scope of the commerce clause.  This reading has given additional ‘stretch’ the the meaning and the Federal Government has taken advantage of that ‘stretch.’  In defense of the stretch  in the commerce clause the courts have relied upon a case decided in 1942, Wickard v. Filburn (317 U.S. 111) which sided with the government against a farmer, Roscoe Filburn who grew wheat for his own consumption.  This activity was deemed to have an effect on interstate commerce.

With this ruling it is conceivable that home gardens at some point could fall into that category . . . God forbid.  There was drafted into the Constitution the doctrine of separation of powers, which is no longer held sacred.  It is now a challenge to control the seat of government between the left and right to control all three branches executive, legislative and judicial.

III

“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, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, . . .”

It is called the Right of Revolution . . .  “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, . . .”  And what is the end of government?  “[T]hat all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, . . .”  This is the first and only function of government.

It is self-evident that in the history of the Democratic party, powers within have been making an effort to create a voting block solely dependent on government benefits; the food stamp program, free education, health care and such government assistance.  All of this supported by the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution.  Thus we have the contest between the general welfare clause of the Constitution and a Declaration of Rights.

The majority of States have incorporated in their constitutions a Declaration of Rights with the proviso that a recurrence to “fundamental principles” is essential to maintaining a free government.  When certain phraseology is used in the constitutional documents, it becomes incumbent upon the reader to know the fundamental principles at the foundation of the constitutions.  We need to know what “rights” we are endowed with to name a few; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

L. Sherwood Glazier

An indépendant for Trump

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in an enemy hath done this, decaying america, Delegation of Authority, democracy, equal footing, Federal Jurisdiction, freedom, liberty, republic, Socialism, Sovereignty, state's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s