| | |
|  |  |
|
|
American Patriot Party National Year End News Letter - December 2009
State Born Exclusive Privileges and Freedom of Contracts
Corporations (state granted privilege of CARTEL); Unions, Tax supported special interests, undelegated state and federal bureaucracies and Zoning (granting privileges between citizens); are all state born exclusive privileges.
The importance of ACTUAL single INDIVIDUAL owning title of property is an important feature to freedom; Collective title in property establishes varying degrees of socialism.
To illustrate one example, 5 persons each owning their own gas station underseparate titles, decide together to establish the price of gas at $5.00 agallon; All 5 owners would be thrown in jail for the CRIME of PRICE FIXING.
Now 5 other people go to the state and become a corporation, they buy 5 gasstations and decide together at a table to charge $5.00 a gallon at eachgas station; Because they are “FICTITIOUSLY” considered an “INDIVIDUAL”, even though they can number in the thousands, they are granted refuge from the price fixing laws.
Allowing "Exclusive Privileges" to "exist" and wondering why freedom isn't working; is the same as Allowing a hole in the Titanic and then wondering why it no longer floats;
Neither belongs, as the correct operation of both rely on the fact that "Exclusive Privileges" and "the hole" do not exist.
Directory and Subjects Covered:
Left Column (WIDE PAGE - Scroll Down v )
Directory
Note on Property & Title
Founders Starting Quotes on the Subject of "Exclusive Privileges"
American Patriot Party Letter
Dependency on Private Collectives, No different than Dependency upon Societal Socialism
Free Trade Affected
Exclusive Privileges, Free Trade and Economics
Civil Law VS Common Law
ENTERS: "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES
Directory and Subjects Covered
1.) TheBasic Foundations of Freedom and Free Society's Creation under "ORIGINALCOMPACT(S)" Constitutional Common Law Republics VS "PRIVILEGES" and"CONTRACTS"
A.) The Corruption by Exclusive Privileges and Contracts
B.) Historical Indicators of Exclusive Privileges
C.) The Visible Indicators
D.) The Warning
E.) No Regulation That May Effect The Citizens Of The Union At Large
F.) No Excuse For Allowing That Which Should Not Even Exist
G.) Limitation of Contracts
H.) The Original Compact
I.) Compacts Cannot Change - Including The Constitution
J.) No New Forms of Taxation or Regulations
K.) Governments Cannot Create Their Own Authority
L.) Unlimited Arbitrary Authority Prohibited From Compacts
M.) Dissolution of Government, Reinstituting The State of War and Rebellion
2.) Understanding that "Freedom of Contract" Does NOT Apply to "Exclusive Privileges"
A.) Actual And Fictitious Individuals
B.) Unconstitutional Laws Can Never Set Precedence
C.) Precedent and Prerogative; New Powers and Laws Prohibited - Quotes and history presented.
a.) Founders Stepping from Constitution.
b.) Bad purposes - Alien and Sedition Acts
c.) Good purposes - Louisiana Purchase
d.) Difference between the two - Precedent and Prerogative.
e.) Good Princes - John Locke Quotes
f.) NO good Act ever a MEANS to set a "PRECEDENT" for a "PREROGATIVE" or"Expansion of POWER"
D.) Civil Case Law Limited by Common Law
E.) Common Law Still Supreme
F.) Condemnation And Imminent Domain Are Void
G.) Taking can NEVER be Assumed to be a Power of CONDEMNATION
a.) TEMPORARY USE for the PROTECTION of PROPERTY
b.) Federal 10 mile LIMITATION
c.) Not an excuse to use prerogative against private property
d.) Not for used to grant or arrogate powers or privileges, foreign or domestic,over private property
e.) Not to be used against a person's "CONSENT";
f.) Samuel Adams Quote: Representatives Cannot justly take from any man,any part of his property without a person's Consent.
g.) NO NEW GRANT of POWER - Take and Compensation LIMITED to Washington DC- Ratifying Convention George Nicholas and Edmund Pendleton Quotes
h.) First Complaints of separation regarding CONSENT - Patrick Henry andJames Madison Quotes
i.) Common Law Principles a "RETAINED RIGHT"
j.) Federal government can make NO LAW that MAY EFFECT the Citizens of theUNION AT LARGE. Edmund Pendleton Quote.
k.) Property cannot be taken from people that have committed crimes or givento others - CONSTITUTION: Article I, Section 9: "....No Bill of Attainderor ex post facto Law shall be passed.
l.) Authority to be authority is limited to the laws established in the OriginalCompact. Pretense of Authority prohibited.
3.) "True Free Trade" Cannot Exist with the Existence of State Born Monopolies and Cartels; i.e. PRIVATIZED SOCIALISM
4.) Effects of "State Born" "Monopoly and Cartels" on True Free Trade and Independent Business (GRAPH)
5.) Effects of "Privatized Governments", - i.e. "Private State Born Exclusive Privileged Collectives", "Are" "Privatized Socialism"
6.) The Differences Between Privately Owned Companies, and Corporations.
A.) Personal ownership and responsibility
B.) "Limited Liability"
C.) "Debt Liability Limitations"
D.) national and local debt liability upon citizens
E.) Sanctity of Property being apart from Man's Employ, Service or Libel Actions
F.) Exclusive Privileges in light of Unions and Corporations
G.) The "Union excuse" however created another problem - Maximum Wages
7.) WAGES and REASON
A.) The Principle
B.) The Subjects
a.) government salaries
b.) private salaries;
c.) and who is in control of the amount that is paid
C.) The Corrupting Factor of Allowing Exclusive Privileges
D.) Wage and Contracts Argument
a.) Corporations - Minimum Wage too High
b.) Unions - Minimum Wage too Low
c.) Special Interests using both excuses.
E.) Applying Reason of the Founders and Common Law
a.) Consensual Minimum Wages
b.) Limit Maximum Wages
c.) Limits to prevent "financial slavery"; and limit government servitudeto "Consensual" wages.
d.) Local Powers to determine Local Salaries
e.) Remove "Prevailing" wages in Corporate contracts and Union wages.
f.) Establish local taxes as the source for all government salaries takingplace in that county.
g.) Visitation Salaries limited to salaries of the county visited;
h.) Procedure of this for out of area government employees.
i.) Includes federal government and federal bureaucrats
j.) Removal of all Union and Union Determined Salaries
k.) Quote "Governors have no right to Seek what they Please".... Or Elsebecome "Despots and Tyrants".
8.) MAXIMUM WAGES are a product of a Corrupted Government
A.) Governors "Seek what they please"
B.) Unions "Seek what they please"
C.) Exclusive Privilege of "Seeking what they please"
D.) Salaries and wages "not determined by public vote"
E.) Federal government exceeding it's physical constitutionally limited boundaries.
F.) Private Contractors using Government Contracts through LOBBYING to "Seek what they please"
G.) Need for setting limits
H.) Setting limits for all servitude positions.
9.) MINIMUMWAGE when Reasonable and Consented by a "LOCAL" Society, is a Necessary andRightful Remedy to Curtail "Financial Slavery"
A.) Consensual public approval for MINIMUM wages
B.) Relation to Common Law - John Locke
C.) Relation to Rights of the Colonists and "Reasonable" Wages
D.) Averting the form of Financial Slavery caused by Confidence Artistry and Usury.
10.) Exclusive Privileges Corrupt the Term Free Market and Free Trade
11.) ZONING - a Government State Born Exclusive Privilege Between Citizens
A.) Exclusive Privileges "Between Citizens"
B.) Population Privilege, a Product of Zoning and a Vacuum of Power
C.) Water, the Final Abuse of Power by the Practice of Zoning
12.) In a Completely Free Society Without Property or Business Limitations and Exclusive Privileges
A.) No Zoning
B.) No Sweeping Environmental Laws
C.) No Arbitrary Laws and the Freedom to Build
D.) Prohibit government inroads upon private property
E.) No Government EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES
F.) No Arbitrary Taxation
G.) Conclusion
13.) Deathas Nature's Competition and Distribution of Wealth VS Corporations, Unions, Collectives and Government "Land Trusts" Exceeding the Term
14.) Effects of State Born Monopoly and Cartels on Water and Land Ownership
***Limited "Compensation Clause" Expanded and Arrogated into a "Condemnation Clause"
15.) ARBITRARY, UNENUMERATED, UNLIMITED, SET PERCENTAGE TAXES ARE THE CATALYST OF EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES AND CORRUPTION
16.) Effects of Exclusive Privileges on Corrupting Elections; and also Allowing Foreign Control of our Laws
A.) States Grant Exclusive privileges to POLITICAL PARTIES
B.) Private Governments - CORPORATIONS
C.) Collective powers create inroads by FOREIGN INTERESTS
D.) Lobbyists Stack Legislatures
E.) Executive Arbitrary Law - A Dissolution of Government
--------------------
Right Column (WIDE PAGE - Scroll Right, Up then Down >)
Patrick Henry, James Madison and George Nicholas Quotes on Exclusive Privileges.
17.) The Act of Legislating Financial Slavery and the Similarity to FOREIGN CONQUEST
18.) Elements of Financial Slavery by Taxation
19.) When a Contract is Considered Slavery
20.) Contracts that establish FINANCIAL SLAVERY are an "Exclusive Privilege"; i.e. USURY
A.) Debt and Credit Slavery and Corruption
a.) Convenience "COMPANY STORE"
b.) Convenience "FARM LABOR STORES"
B.) UNDELEGATED UNENUMERATED ARBITRARY UNCONSENSUAL TAXATION
C.) Credit Cards - CONTRACT combination of:
a.) Usury in interest
b.) Practice of "Deceptive Convenience" to Cultivate "Financial Indenture"(slavery) of citizens to banks.
D.) Teaching childrenagainst borrowing should be a regular weekly curriculum in schools. Repetitionbeing the best teacher
21.) Crime and Contracts
A.) Usury
B.) Confidence Artistry
C.) Cartel
D.) Monopoly
22.) Capitalism VS Liberalism Deception
23.) "Exclusive Privileges" Granted of Arms and Protection
24.) Free Trade and Borders
25.) Nationalism VS True Patriotism
26.) Monopoly and Cartel Laws
A.) Monopoly of Human Labor.
B.) Prevention of Land Monopolies,
C.) Localized Monopoly Laws to Free up Government Land to Individuals and Private Title;
D.) Limiting Collectivism
E.) Addressing Principles of Natural Law - See Locke on "so long as there is enough"
F.) Future Exploration
27.) "Exclusive Privileges" Found in Exploration and Development of Oil, Gas, and Minerals and Refinement.
A.) Manipulation of laws and Legislation,
B.) CARA Bill,
C.) Get out and Go Act
D.) Omnibus Bill
28.) Zoning and Other Restrictions on Private Lands for Drilling Creating "Exclusive Privileges"
29.) People Enslaving Themselves Through Granting "Exclusive Privileges"
A.) International foreign ownership of local properties through holdership of stocks.
An allowance that removes land ownership from a country's own citizenry and or subjects land and people to foreign interests.
B.) Establishing local dependency on foreign people and companies andthose effects upon local legislatives
C.) State Sponsored Private Cartels
D.) Federal Lands limited by "Original Compact" (i.e. Constitution) to 10 miles square
E.) National and international manipulation through undelegated powers and treaties
F.) The Act of the Condemnation or Taking of Private Property into Federal Ownership
30.) DANGERS OF "COLLECTIVE TITLE" IN PROPERTY - I.E. COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM
31.)When Government grants themselves Exclusive Privileges of Protection; Harboring such a defense in readiness of acts against the people; or to useto protect themselves, while they hand the citizens into the hands of a foreignlegislature (power) i.e. such as United Nations Sanctions.
32.) RegulationsVS Law; Removing regulations does not remove the ability to employ "just"laws; It simply removes the power of the government and others to grant privileges.A set "just" Law treats all individuals equal; Where regulations and departmentpolicies often allow interpretation and actual privileges.
33.) Government Cannot Grant Exclusive Privileges to Itself, Nor can it Grant Exclusive Privileges to Others.
34.) Rights Removed and Exchanged for Exclusive Privileges Granted "by the State" in WATER and LAND
35.) Solutions
APP Notes on one Subject in Regard to TITLE to Property and Land;
1.) First is the understanding that a single person's Individual ownership of "title in property" equals freedom;
and that "collective" ownership (more than one person) of title in property equals graduating levels of socialism.
2.)Secondly, there is a difference in the granting of TITLE to "available land"by the people, through the people, where past government has acquired landsusing money from the general public;
Once a actual "person" is granted land through the "process" of government, it is complete "OWNERSHIP" of TITLE by a PATENT;
It is a "right" of property by grant, not a privilege;and as such not subject to, limited or privileged, nor can it be collaterallyattacked or condemned or taken back by government (more on this will be presentedin our next 2010 Year End News Letter "Wards of the State").
Government technically cannot own land or property; Government buildings (forts) and necessary land are there only at the consentof "local" people and their "local" legislatives; PRIVATE PROPERTY once transferredin PATENT to an individual cannot be taken away by person, legislative, representativeor any form of government.
Here it is clear:
Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:
"...In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the MEANS of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the VERY "NATURE" OF ITS INSTITUTION is for the support, protection and defence of those VERY RIGHTS: the principal of which as is before observed, are life, liberty and PROPERTY. ..." "....Thirdly, The "supreme power" (i.e. the >>>"LEGISLATIVE") "CANNOT" "JUSTLY" "TAKE" from ANY man, ANY PART of his PROPERTY without his "CONSENT", in >>>"PERSON" "OR" (VERY IMPORTANT) by his >>>>>>>"REPRESENTATIVE"."
I.E. There is No such thing as "imminent domain" outside the "10 miles square"of Washington DC; Actually "anywhere"; as "taking for public use" is "verylimited" in even that area: James Madison 6-16-1788: "(the federal government)...cannotbe more than 1 mile"); Which, when so used outside that area, it is the useof force without any authority never granted by the Constitution; This is defined by the Ratifying Conventions that define the meaning of the words written in the Constitution.
Powersimposed on the states by the federal government after the civil war thatwere never delegated to it, remain unconstitutional, VOID and of NO FORCE,but is a force imposed and enforced without any authority under the "PRETENSEof AUTHORITY". As Authority only comes only from the "Original Compact" thatthe federal government was ORIGINALLY created under.
|
|
To start us off on the right footing for this news letter, here are a few quotes from the Founders
George Mason - Virginia Declaration of Rights
#4: "That "NO MAN", OR "SET OF MEN", are entitled to exclusive or "separate emoluments" or "privileges" from the "community", but in consideration of "public" services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary."
John Locke - Civil Government 1690: John Locke #142"...These are the "bounds" which the "trust" that is put in them (government) by the society and the law of God and Nature have set to the legislative power of every commonwealth, in ALL forms of government. First: They are to govern by promulgated established laws, "NOT TO BE VARIED in particular cases, but to have ONE RULE for rich and poor, for the favourite at Court, and the countryman at plough. (APP Note: See these exact words in the Absolute Rights of the Colonists - By Samuel Adams 1772) Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 defining the Constitution: Mr. GRAYSON: "Among the various "laws and customs" which pervaded Europe, there were "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" and IMMUNITIES enjoyed in many places.
He thought that this ought to be "GUARDED AGAINST"; for should such "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" be granted to merchants residing within the "TEN MILES SQUARE" (Washington, DC), it would be HIGHLY injurious to the inhabitants of OTHER PLACES."
Mr. GRAYSON: Mr. Chairman, one answer which has been given (by the federalists) is, the improbability of the evil that it will never be attempted, and that it is "ALMOST" impossible. This will not satisfy us, when we consider the great attachments men have to a great and "magnificent capital" (i.e. " Washington DC" and "National Pride"). It would be the interest of the citizens of that district to aggrandize themselves by EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS in their power, to the "great injury" of the other states.
(APP Note: Corporations, Unions and other state born Exclusive Privileged entities, have increased this danger beyond the TEN MILES SQUAREof Washington, DC, having no limits to area granted such exclusive privilegesby government; Compounded by the fact that the federal government itselfhas expanded far outside the "10 MILES SQUARE" it was limited to under the Original Compact - i.e. Constitution; )
James Madison: (APP: speaking of the limitations of the federal government) "I cannot comprehend" that the "power of legislating" over a >>>"SMALL" district, which >>>"CANNOT EXCEED "TEN" MILES "square"", and >>>"MAY NOT BE MORE than >>>"ONE" MILE", will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be ANY knowledge in my mind of the "nature" of man, I should think it would be the "LAST THING" that would enter into the mind of any man >>> to grant "EXCLUSIVE ADVANTAGES", in a VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED district, to the prejudice of the community "AT LARGE". Thomas Jefferson: " If the American people EVER allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the "BANKS and CORPORATIONS" (APP: Corporations being a "state born" "Exclusive Privilege" of Cartel) that will grow up around them (around the banks which are privileged corporations also), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: " Weare told, we are afraid to trust ourselves; that our own representativesCongress will not exercise their powers oppressively; that we shall not enslave ourselves; that the militia cannot enslave themselves.
WHO HAS ENSLAVED France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny?
>>>>>>>They have been >>>>>>>"ENSLAVED" by the hands of THEIR >>>>>>>"OWN" PEOPLE. >>>>>>>>>If it will be so in America, it will be only as it has been every where else."
Samuel Adams - 1776:
"If ye love "wealth greater than liberty" (Granting and Accepting Exclusive State Privileges), the "tranquility (i.e. PEACE possessed) of servitude (Dependency upon Government)" greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and MAY POSTERITY FORGET THAT YE WERE OUR COUNTRYMEN."
---------------- |
|
To all State Chair Persons and Party Members:
Welcome to the American Patriot Party!
The subject for the 2009 Year End News Letter is Exclusive Privileges and Contracts.
Manyof our state and federal problems can be linked to, stem from, and are theresult from our federal, state and local governments granting Exclusive Privileges; And as you will find from this news letter, in more ways than you might think.
All governments, and organizations are made up of people; The "construction of power" is what differentiates between a free government and a socialist government. The Founder's understood, that it is from state born "Exclusive Privileges" which stems the corruption that takes hold and cause destruction of true liberty and destruction of "true free trade" within a free society;
The Founder's intent was to guard against "Exclusive Privileges"; As presented in the previous quotes. "Exclusive Privileges" are found to be common place in corrupt governments and those becoming corrupt.
It did not take long before the federal and state governments began to step away from their limited "delegated" powers granted in their "Original Compacts" (Constitution"s"), and to begin granting "Exclusive Privileges" of all types; Between them and the society that elected them, and between the individuals within the society such as is apparent in "Zoning"laws. Political power of the two larger parties is granted privileges bythe governments placing the bar to be recognized by the government as a partyso high that few can achieve it.
Dependency on Private Collectives, No different than Dependency upon Societal Socialism.
Keep in mind that "Privatized" Socialism or Privately Organized Exclusive Privileged "Collectivism", is "still" socialism. It matters not whether it is part of any recognized government, nor the name which it resides under;
DEPENDENCY upon large or numerous State Born Exclusive Privileged Private "Collectives" (such as Corporations and Unions), can have the same effect upon citizens and labor, as the DEPENDENCY citizens have when under Socialism in government. As more and more citizens migrate toward "collective entities", Individual owned businesses are slowly squeezed out of existence; Competition going to a FEW; Instead of between the MANY, as was the intention of free societies promoting individual freedoms and independent business.
Where independent sole owner businesses create independence; Exclusive privileged labor creates DEPENDENCY upon others:
*Corporate labor dependent upon the Corporation (whoever that may be);
*Union labor dependent upon the Union it belongs;
*Public Dependent and forced to pay government's dictated Union MAXIMUM prevailing wages.
*Taxsupported Special Interests dependent upon Government money; Governments(federal and state) which in many cases take unconsensual unenumerated (andthereby unconstitutional) Taxes from the public.
*Undelegated (under theOriginal Compact) Federal, state and local Government Bureaucracies (usuallyunconstitutionally mandated) who are not only dependent upon the public,also forcibly take unconsensual unenumerated Taxes from the public withoutauthority, dictate MAXIMUM prevailing wages established by Unions, and not wages established by public local community consent or determination.
Free Trade Affected.
You will see clearly, that there is a vast difference between Exclusive Privileged / Advantaged Trade and True Free Trade.
There is also now, little or no difference between such "Exclusive Privileged entities";
This is as Unions Incorporate themselves, Corporations Unionize themselves or use union contracts with their own;
Tax supported special interests do both as well as derive funds from government grants and programs (taken from arbitrary unenumerated taxation); Undelegated (Not existing under the Original Compact) and delegated government bureaucracies, Unionize, demand prevailing (maximum) wages and develop "exclusive privileged" "contracts" with Corporations and Unions.
Exclusive Privileges, Free Trade and Economics
Before any economic issue can be solved "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES", (sometimes called Crony Capitalism) needs to be solved.
But also the need to "correctly define" the terms we use in defining it.
The Founders defined "Crony Capitalism", a term sometimes used today, as "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES";
Once the proper "term" is established, the base of the problem can be viewed in a much clearer light.
State born "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" of "CARTEL" create the condition of "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGED" Trade;
Thisis found in the "collective financial powers" that they are able to wieldin the market, the financial manipulation of lobbying of our laws, and thedependency they create in those that are drawn to these entities as the truefree market is REDUCED by the ever increasing existence of more collectivework forces, or "PRIVATIZED COLLECTIVE SOCIALISM".
So before (or while) economics is discussed, so should the removal of "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" be discussed.
Which are:
1.) Corporations
2.) Unions
3.) Tax Supported Special Interests
4.) Undelegated (Under the Original Constitution) Federal Bureaucracies and State mandated Bureaucracies
5.)Zoning (Federal mandated, State and Local) That create Exclusive Privilegesbetween one citizen over another; As to where and how they are able to dobusiness or in which way they they are able to use their property.
6.)Cities; Which are a "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE" of "Corporate Cartel" use thisZONING to direct and limit trade to businesses in their area and vicinity.
All of these establish NOT free trade, but "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGED" Trade.
And#5 is as great a cause as all the rest in causing unemployment and reducingand limiting true free competition against the rest.
The Argumentof "FREEDOM of CONTRACT" holds "NO MEANING" when "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" areallowed to exist; as "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" corrupt the principle and meaningof "free contracts and true free trade"
HOW can there be freetrade and a free market value of oil when only large corporations can competewith government controlled contracts, and a private person is prohibitedfrom drilling for oil on his own land because of harsh zoning and environmentallaws held against private property?
It simply cannot.
So, while looking at the economics, we should be putting an even harder effort to removing the greatest corruption of freedom: "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES";
And to define it for what it "IS", and not use the term "Crony Capitalism";
... as "Capitalism" is also a "undefinable term" when "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" are allowed to exist.
--------
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
Mr. GRAYSON: "...Adverting to the clause investing Congress with the power of exclusive legislation in a district not exceeding "ten miles square",he said he had before expressed his doubts that this {431} district wouldbe the favorite of the generality, and that it would be possible for themto give "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" ofcommerce to those residing within it. He had illustrated what he said byEuropean examples. It might be said to be impracticable to exercise thispower in this manner. Among the various laws and customs which pervaded Europe,there were "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" and immunities enjoyed in many places. "
"He thought that this ought to be "guarded AGAINST"; for should such "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" be granted to merchants residing within the ten miles square, it would be highly injurious to the inhabitants of OTHER PLACES."
Mr. GEORGE MASON "thought that there were fewclauses in the Constitution "so dangerous as that" which gave Congress "exclusivepower of legislation" within "ten miles square". Implication, he observed, was capable of any extension, and would probably be extended to augment the congressional powers. (APP NOTE: as presently found in "FEDERAL MANDATES" and undelegated powers)But here there was no need of implication. This clause gave them an unlimitedauthority, in every possible case, within that district. This ten miles square,says Mr. Mason, may set at defiance the laws of the surrounding states, andmay, like the custom of the superstitious days of our ancestors, become thesanctuary of the blackest crimes. Here the federal courts are to sit. We have heard a good deal said of justice. ... "
APP: Note the sarcasm in George Mason's last sentence.
Mr. JAMES MADISON:Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration wasone of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessaryto say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me askwhether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers. I cannotcomprehend that the power of legislating over a "small district", which "CANNOT EXCEED" "ten miles square", and may NOT BE "more" than "one" mile, will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant "EXCLUSIVE ADVANTAGES", in a very "circumscribed district", to the "prejudice of the community at large". ......."The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend ANY danger, they may "REFUSE it ALTOGETHER"."
Civil Law VS Common Law
The involvement of these "entities" with each other, have created yet greater dangers as they entrench themselves into our governments, local societies and laws. Their "collective powers" have developed the ART of manipulation in our courts, legislation, lobby practices and laws; The steady transformation that our founders feared would happen, the transformation "from" Common Law that protects private property, liberty and limits powers, "into" solely Civil Law, HAS HAPPENED; The condition that man, through use of legislation outside the limited delegated powers and limited authority, begins to dictatewhat he pleases to the detriment of private property, liberties and the entrenchmentof adverse powers - over the will of local societies and individual rights; It is important that you understand this critical reasoning that the Founders understood well; This conflict is what was described by the Founders as God and Natures laws (Common Law), verses that termed as >>>>>>>"HUMAN Legislation":
Patrick Henry 6-16-1788 Ratifying Convention. (a warning): "...There is, therefore, more occasion for the supplementary check of a bill of rights "now" than then. Congress, from their "general, powers", "may" fully go into business of >>>>>>>"HUMAN legislation"...." "....In "this" (HUMAN) "business of legislation", your members of Congress will "LOOSE the RESTRICTION" of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your Declaration of Rights. What has distinguished our ancestors? That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment.
But Congress "may" introduce >>>the practice of the "CIVIL law", in PREFERENCE to that of the "COMMON law". They "MAY" {448} introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany of "torturing", to extort a confession of the crime. They will SAY that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with "still more" relentless severity. >>>>>>>>>We are then "LOST and UNDONE". And can any man think it troublesome, when we can, by a small interference, prevent our rights from being lost? If you will, like the Virginian government, give them "knowledge of the extent" of the rights retained by the people, and the powers of themselves, they will, if they be honest men, thank you for it. Will they not wish to go on sure grounds? But if you leave them otherwise, they will not know how to proceed; and, being in a state of uncertainty, they (the governments) will >>>"ASSUME" rather than give up powers by "implication". A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? That our rights are reserved. Why not say so? Is it because it will consume too much paper? Gentlemen's reasoning against a "bill of rights" does not satisfy me.Without saying which has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rightsis a favorite thing with the Virginians and the people of the other stateslikewise. It may be their prejudice, but the government ought to suit theirgeniuses; otherwise, its operation will be unhappy. A bill of rights, even if its necessity be doubtful, will >>>>>>>>>>>"exclude the possibility" of dispute; and, with great submission, I think the BEST way is to >>>>>>>>>>>"have NO DISPUTE"..."
ENTERS: "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES":
A General Rule of Thumb to Recognize EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES:
If you must to go to the (county, state, federal or other) government for ANY "THING"that will be provided through them, either by favor, regulation or finance,for which an advantage or a permission will be granted to one person, thatmay not be given or which is not freely and equally available to another,with or without government, there exists "Exclusive Privilege".
By simply ALLOWING ANY government to "decide and grant privileges", this is just the beginning of the "CORRUPTION" of the Constitution, essential natural rights and of TRUE free trade.
In this fourth issue of the American Patriot Party National News Letter, we discuss the Dangers of government granting "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES", the corruption in society created by and feeding upon it, and the need of Removing all State born Exclusive Privileges which are:
1.) Corporations
2.) Unions
3.) Tax Supported Special Interests
4.) Undelegated (Under the Original Constitution) Federal Bureaucracies and State mandated Bureaucracies
5.)Zoning (Federal mandated, State and Local) That create Exclusive Privilegesbetween one citizen over another; As to where and how they are able to dobusiness or in which way they they are able to use their property.
6.)Cities; Which are a "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE" of "Corporate Cartel" use thisZONING to direct and limit trade to businesses in their area and vicinity.
Also covered, is the procedures necessary to remove them.
I hope you will enjoy and find insight from both the dialog and Founder's own words we have offered.
Sincerely,
Richard Taylor
Chair
American Patriot Party.CC
American Patriot Party State of Oregon
1.) The Basic Foundations of Freedom and Free Society's Creation under "ORIGINAL COMPACT(S)" Constitutional Common Law Republics VS "PRIVILEGES" and "CONTRACTS";
A.) The Corruption by Exclusive Privileges and Contracts
The Corruption by Either Introducing or Allowing Exclusive Privileges to Exist, "OR" Unrestrained and Unlimited Freedom of Contracts that Defy Reason is best explained by examining Common Law VS Civil Law. Noting as Patrick Henry's quote above presented, that Free Governments cannot employ "Arbitrary" civil law undermining or against the established principles of Common law. (i.e. Common Law - "Preexistingclaims to rights IN the people" belong to the people, whether included inany compact or not - George Nicholas in the same Virginia Ratifying Convention6-16-1788)
TheCorruption in Law when Corporate or government Lawyers or Judges begin toredefine our laws outside the limited delegated powers and establish a "precedence in law" that redefines the PLAIN SENSE INTENTIONS set down by the founders to arrogate upon federal, state, other municipalities and private entities, powers NO WHERE INTENDED to be granted; Such as seen in Condemnation laws, Imminent domain laws, policing powers and the General Welfare Clause. Often from "EXPOUNDING" ON THE "GENERAL PHRASES" of the Constitution. See The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798 where James Madison establishes the necessity of NULLIFYING any law that is established upon EXPOUNDING upon the "GENERAL PHRASES" of the Constitution.
B.) Historical Indicators of Exclusive Privileges:
History presents that for freedom and free trade to work and work correctly, "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" granted by or in governments must not exist; and that the the deterioration of freedom itself, begins with the allowance of "Exclusive Privileges".
This deterioration becomes very visible when government is seen to step outside it's "limited delegated powers" of the "ORIGINAL COMPACT" for which it was granted "LIMITED" Authority by the people at it's (That society's) creation.
C.) The Visible Indicators:
a.) Thearising of state born "Exclusive Privileged Entities", groups, and undelegatedbureaucracies which is now WIDESPREAD; (corporations, unions, tax supportedspecial interests, undelegated bureaucracies and zoning)
b.) When the government "itself" begins to create Exclusive Privileges for "themselves"; A modern example of this, would be the recent Health Care Bill that everyone in the United States would have to comply with ..... >>>EXCEPT>>>>>CONGRESS!; Who have privileged themselves with an exclusion!
John Locke #143:"...Therefore in "well-ordered commonwealths", where the good of the wholeis so considered "as it ought", the legislative power is put into the handsof divers persons who, duly assembled, have by themselves, or jointly withothers, a power to make laws, which when they have done, being separated again, they are themselves subject to the laws they have made; which is a new and near tie upon them to take care that they make them for the public good.
c.) Another example is the privilege of "Presidential Proclamations"!!!!, a POWER NO WHERE granted in the Constitution!
D.) The Warning:
Patrick Henry's and George Mason's warning that Congress may do just what has been done by our corrupted Congress (Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788):
PATRICK HENRY: "...The people within THAT place (Washington, DC), and the strongholds, may be "excused from all the burdens imposed on the rest of the society", and "may" "ENJOY EXCLUSIVE EMOLUMENTS", to the great INJURY of the rest of the people. But gentlemen say that the power will not he abused. They ought to "show that it is necessary".
GEORGE MASON:... "...But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to ALL powerswhich are NOT granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "PERVERTED TO IT'S DESTRUCTION".... "Unless there be some express declaration that EVERY THING >>>"NOT GIVEN" is retained, >>>>>>>IT WILL BE CARRIED TO >>>>>>>>"ANY POWER CONGRESS MAY PLEASE"."
Now again let us review James Madison's reply to these warnings:
JAMES MADISON: "...If there be ANY knowledge in my mind of the "nature" of man, I should think it would be the >>>>>>"LAST THING" that would enter into the mind of "ANY" man >>> to grant "EXCLUSIVE ADVANTAGES", in a VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED district (i.e. 10 miles of Washington DC), to the prejudice of the community "AT LARGE".
".....If that "latitude" of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause", there "would" be room for those horrors. But it gives no supplementary power. It ONLY enables them to execute the "DELEGATED powers". "If" the "DELEGATION" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. >>>It is at most "but" explanatory."
E.) No Regulation That May Effect The Citizens Of The Union At Large
The "Federal" health care bill itself, as with "ANY REGULATION" that will effect the >>>"Union at Large" that is clearly OUTSIDE the delegated powers of congress, is therefore unconstitutional and of NO force or authority, NORcan it be "ratified" by the states to be made so; As that would be a meansto "ARROGATE" power it is expressly prohibited from doing:
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: Mr. PENDLETON. "...Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY PART" of the Constitution, >>>(N)OR to make >>>>>>>"ANY" >>> "REGULATION" that " "MAY" affect the "interests" of the citizens of the >>>>>UNION AT LARGE.".......
"With respect to the necessity of the >>>"TEN miles square"being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to makeall laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into executionthe foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,
I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED" powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,
>>>(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" POWERS; for the "PLAIN LANGUAGE" of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."
F.) No Excuse For Allowing That Which Should Not Even Exist
***As presented throughout our site:
The "EXCUSE" (as often argued) of Allowing for "everyone" the "ability" to have "exclusive privileges" granted to them by the state, is NO EXCUSE for allowing "THAT" which should "NOT EVEN EXIST".
G.) Limitation of Contracts:
Contracts also have limitations; Often heard is the attempt to establish that the "freedom of contract" is a "license" derived from freedom and is without limitation, or ability to do "anything one LISTS" (i.e. WANTS);
This is wholly incorrect.
This description is clearly established by John Locke as "NOT" freedom. For to establish this, is what John Locke has explained as a "incorrect mindset of freedom".
A power to create a contract that would enslave another beyond reason, either physically or financially isnot a freedom for anyone to establish. This is a description of slavery.It is the acceptance of another person relinquishing his essential naturalrights through "fear, fraud or mistake".
Rights of the Colonists: "...If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right,the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutelyvacate such renunciation; the [Volume 5, Page 396] right to freedom beingthe gift of God Almighty, it is "not in the power of Man to alienate this gift", and "voluntarily become a slave"--"
Because "Exclusive Privileges" are derived first from governments, let us review some historical documents so to understand the principles;
Here John Locke presents the understanding of law:
Locke 6. (Referring to man in the "State" of "Nature" i.e. without government) But though this be a "state of liberty", yet it is >>>"NOT A STATE OF LICENSE"; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The "State of Nature" has a "Law of Nature" to govern it, which obliges every one, and "REASON", "which is THAT law", teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and "independent", >>>no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions;for men being ALL the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker;all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His orderand about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they aremade to last during His, not one another's pleasure.
Locke 21. "The "natural liberty" of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have ONLY the "Law of Nature" for his rule. (APP Note: See this exact wording from Samuel Adams in the Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772)
The liberty of man "IN" "SOCIETY" is to be under no other legislative power but that established by "consent" in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact >>>"ACCORDING" TO THE "TRUST" PUT INTO IT. (APP: i.e. the "ORIGINAL COMPACT" that the society was "FIRST" created under, and the "intent" under which it had been Ratified )
>>>>>>>>>>Freedom, then, is "NOT" what Sir Robert Filmer tells us: A liberty for every one "to do what he lists", to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws"; but freedom of men "under government" is to have a standing rule to live by, >>>>>>>>>>>>>"COMMON TO EVERY ONE of THAT society", and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, ARBITRARY will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint BUT the "Law of Nature"." ("Commonto Everyone", i.e. accessible to everyone and Not "Arbitrary", i.e. Not arbitrarilygiven to one and not the other, this would exclude all exclusive privileges)
Locke 22. "This freedom from absolute, ARBITRARY power is "SO NECESSARY" to, and closely joined with, a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life together. For a man, not having the power of his own life, "CANNOT by COMPACT" (i.e. CONTRACT or CONSTITUTION) "OR" his "OWN CONSENT" "ENSLAVE" himself to "ANY ONE", NOR PUT himself under the absolute, ARBITRARY power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life cannot give another power "OVER" it...."
(See this in the Rights of the Colonists 1772 as: Samuel Adams: "...If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reasonand the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation;the [Volume 5, Page 396] right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and "voluntarily become a slave"--")
Locke 23. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else but the state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive, for if once "COMPACT" enter between them, and make an agreement for a >>>"LIMITED" POWER" on the one side, and obedience on the other, the "state of war and slavery ceases" as long as the "COMPACT" endures; for, as has been said, no man can by agreement pass over to another that which he hath not in himself -- a power over his own life."
Locke 57: "....So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is NOT to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, >>>where there is NO law there is NO freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which CANNOT BE where there is no law; and is "NOT", as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he LISTS." For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the "allowance" of "THOSE laws" (i.e. "Original Compact") under >>>which HE "IS", and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own."
H.) The Original Compact
>>>Here is a very important understanding in freedom and is often passed by; Understanding that when people create a society, they must first agree on a "COMPACT". When created, it is considered to be the "ORIGINAL COMPACT".
Republics are bound by this "ORIGINAL COMPACT"; Unlike total Democracies that can change any law, which eventually corrupts itself; Republics "CANNOT CHANGE" and are bound by the "ORIGINAL COMPACT" they were first created under; You will find this description and it's limitation upon governments in the Founders Documents.
Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:
When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a "RIGHT" to "DEMAND" and "INSIST" upon the performance of such conditions, And "PREVIOUS limitations" as form an equitable >>>"ORIGINAL COMPACT".-- Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact "necessarily" ceded REMAINS.-- All positive and CIVIL laws, should CONFORM as far as possible, to the Law of NATURAL REASON and equity.-- (i.e. COMMON LAW - i.e. God and Natures Law, Reason and Equity)
I.) Compacts Cannot Change - Including The Constitution:
Once a "COMPACT" is Created, it "CANNOT" change.
The exception to this rule is when the Compact "itself" allows for CERTAIN TYPES of changes.
The U.S. Constitution allows for changes "ONLY" "WITHIN" the "DELEGATED" powers. This LIMITS the function of the "Amendment and Ratifying Process" to "ONLY" those things that are WITHIN the DELEGATED powers; State or Federal Legislatives "CANNOT" "Ratify" UNDELEGATED powers to empower the federal government outside the DELEGATED powers of the "ORIGINAL COMPACT".
Nor can the amendment process, which was meant to be used to make changes WITHIN THE LIMITED DELEGATED POWERS to protect our freedoms, be used to ARROGATE NEW powers upon the federal government which it has been expressly prohibited from stepping outside the delegated powers to acquire; Not even by one step..
J.) No New Forms of Taxation or Regulations
The unenumerated indirect "income tax" is an example of a undelegated power that cannot be "ratified by the states" into a new federal power;
Declared twice unconstitutional, it remains unconstitutional as ARROGATING NEW POWERS are expressly prohibited.
This is explained by the Founders in several ways:
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
Edmund Pendleton: >>> ".....They can make NO REGULATION that "MAY" effect the citizens of the >>>UNION AT LARGE"
"I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers".What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they shouldbe about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue someof the "DELEGATED powers",
but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them, (N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the "PLAIN LANGUAGE" of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers".
a.) This "RESTRICTS" the "states" from "ratifying" powers UPON the federal government to accomplish the "SAME ARROGATION OF POWERS" that is "EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED"
b.) This Constitutional restriction also includes limiting the federal government from creating regulations and powers to "prosecute new crimes" not originally delegated;
Granting itself the power to prosecute tax evasion is NOT a delegated power granted the federal government;
See Kentucky Resolutions 1798: Thomas Jefferson:
# 2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to
a.) punish treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and
d.) felonies committed on the high seas (APP: On the High Seas ONLY. NOT "within the states"), and
e.) offenses against the law of nations,
and "NO OTHER CRIMES, WHATSOEVER"
andit being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitutionhaving also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United Statesby the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, andintituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishmentof certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by themon the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committedon the bank of the United States," (andALL their other acts which "ASSUME" to "CREATE", "DEFINE", or "PUNISH" crimes,"OTHER than those SO ENUMERATED in the Constitution",) >>>ARE ALTOGETHER "VOID, AND OF NO FORCE", and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its "OWN" territory."
K.) Governments Cannot Create Their Own Authority:
Republics are based upon "UNCHANGEABLE ORIGINAL COMPACTS" which create AUTHORITY that can ONLY be granted BY THE PEOPLE WHO "HAD" CREATE IT.
FREE GOVERNMENTS CANNOT CREATE THEIR "OWN" AUTHORITY.
The understanding that COMPACTS CANNOT CHANGE "ONCE CREATED" is important, because it establishes the POINT in time when Tyranny, or "Force Without Authority", would begin. And that point, is when the government first establishes a design or creates steps outside the DELEGATED powers granted to it, and beyond that which it was given "LIMITED AUTHORITY" under the "ORIGINAL" "COMPACT";
JohnLocke: #142: "...Fourthly: Legislative neither must nor can transferthe power of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere but wherethe people have."
John Locke: #212: "...When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority,which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they comeagain to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative,as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those who,without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposureof his own will, when those who had, by the "delegation" of the society,the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurpthe place who have no such authority or delegation."
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 (Defining our Constitutional "COMPACT"):
Edmond Pendleton: >>> ".....They can make NO REGULATION that "MAY" effect the citizens of the >>>UNION AT LARGE" "I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers".What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they shouldbe about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue someof the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them, (N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the "PLAIN LANGUAGE" of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."
".....Whyoppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituentsto grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; theeffect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have no operation without the limits of that district. Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO effect the moment it would go without that place; for their "exclusive power" is confined to that district. Were they to pass such a law, it would be NUGATORY; and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district. This "exclusive power" is limited to that place solely, for their "own" preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary.
George Nicholas: "....He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers, the "JUDICIARY" will declare it "VOID", OR ELSE "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID".
Thereforethe federal "authority" of this country is both limited in power and in area;and restricted from exceeding those "bounds" or else their acts are VOIDand WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
L.) Unlimited Arbitrary Authority Prohibited From Compacts
And it is further very important to understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE to give Unlimited Arbitrary Authority by Compact (i.e. CONTRACT) or ANY OTHER means, over people in free governments;
To do so, is what John Locke clearly and rightly establishes as "Slavery" under an arbitrary power.
John Locke #23. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else but the state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive, for if once "COMPACT" enter between them, and make an "AGREEMENT" for a >>>"LIMITED" power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases AS LONG as the "COMPACT" endures; for, as has been said, NO MAN can "by AGREEMENT" (i.e. "CONTRACT" or "COMPACT") pass over to another that which he hath not in himself -- a power over his own life".
John Locke #135. "...A man, as has been proved, "CANNOT" subject himself to the "ARBITRARY POWER" of another; and having, in the state of Nature, "NO" "ARBITRARY POWER"over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as thelaw of Nature gave him for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind,this is all he doth, or can give up to the commonwealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this.Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of thesociety.10 It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and thereforecan "NEVER" have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects;
Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 - Patrick Henry: "...If it (the federal government) be unbounded (allowed to step outside the limited delegated powers), it must lead to despotism; for the power of a people in a free government is supposed to be "paramount" to the existing power...."
M.) Dissolution of Government, Reinstituting The State of War and Rebellion:
State or Federal Governments STEPPING OUTSIDE the LIMITED DELEGATED powers to grant "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES", corrupts the law and the limited authority. Renewing the State of War.
HERE it is long established, THAT: When Federal "OR" State governments Step outside the Delegated powers granted them under an "ORIGINAL COMPACT" (Constitutions), governments "DISSOLVE" themselves.
This is called the "DISSOLUTION of GOVERNMENT" which John Locke clearly establishes:
John Locke #212. "Besides this overturning from without, governments are "DISSOLVED" from WITHIN:
"First. When the legislative is altered, civil society being a state of peace amongst those who are of it, from whom the state of war is excluded by the umpirage which they have provided in their legislative for the ending all differencesthat may arise amongst any of them; it is in their legislative that the membersof a commonwealth are united and combined together into one coherent livingbody. This is the soul that gives form, life, and unity to the commonwealth; from hence the several members have their mutual influence, sympathy, and connection; and therefore when the legislative is broken, or "DISSOLVED", dissolution and death follows. For the essence and union of the society consisting in having one will, the legislative, when once established by the majority, has the declaring and, as it were, keeping of THAT will (APP: i.e. "ORIGINAL INTENT").
The CONSTITUTION of the legislative is the FIRST and fundamental ACT of society, whereby provision is made for the continuation of their union under the direction of persons and bonds of laws, made by persons authorised thereunto, by the consent and appointment of the people, without which no one man, or number of men, amongst them can have authority of making laws that shall be binding to the rest.
WHENany ONE, or MORE, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people haveNOT appointed so to do, "THEY MAKE LAWS WITHOUT AUTHORITY", which the peopleare "NOT THEREFORE BOUND TO OBEY "; by which means they come again to be OUT of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in "FULL LIBERTY TO RESIST" the force of those who, "WITHOUT AUTHORITY", would impose ANYTHING upon them. Every ONE is at the disposure of his OWN will, when those who had, by the "DELEGATION" ("DELEGATED" POWERS OF THE "ORIGINAL COMPACT")of the society, the declaring of the public will, are "EXCLUDED" from it,and OTHERS usurp the place who have "NO" such "AUTHORITY" or "DELEGATION"...." (i.e. ALL THOSE not staying within the limited DELEGATED POWERS OF THE "ORIGINAL COMPACT")
John Locke #214. First, that when such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will of the society declared by the legislative, then the legislative is CHANGED. For that being, in effect, the legislative whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed, when "OTHER LAWS" are set up, and "OTHER RULES" "PRETENDED" and enforced than what the legislative, CONSTITUTED BY THE SOCIETY, HAVE enacted, it is plain that the legislative "is changed". WHOEVER introduces >>>>NEW laws, NOT being thereunto authorised, by the fundamental appointment of the society, >>>>>>OR "SUBVERTS THE OLD", disowns and overturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.
John Locke #218. Why, in such a constitution as this, the DISSOLUTION of the governmentin these cases is to be imputed to the prince is evident, because he, havingthe force, treasure, and offices of the State to employ, and often persuading himself or being flattered by others, that, as supreme magistrate, he is incapable of control; he alone is in a condition to make great advances towards such "changes" under >>>"PRETENCE" of lawful AUTHORITY, and has it in his hands to terrify or suppress opposers as factious, seditious, and enemies to the government;whereas no other part of the legislative, or people, is capable by themselvesto attempt any alteration of the legislative without open and visible rebellion,apt enough to be taken notice of, which, when it prevails, PRODUCES EFFECTS "VERY LITTLE DIFFERENT" from "FOREIGN CONQUEST".
John Locke #222. "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their PROPERTY;and the end while they choose and authorise a legislative is that there maybe laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of allthe society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society. For since it can NEVERbe supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should havea power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering intosociety, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making: >>>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..."
"...by this "BREACH OF TRUST" they "FORFEIT" the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their "original liberty" (i.e. as one has in the "state of nature"), and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence) which is the end for which they are in society.
John Locke #226. Thirdly: I answer, that this power in the people of providing for their safety anew by a new legislative when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probable means to hinder it.
For rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but authority, which is founded ONLY in the constitutions and laws of the government: those, whoever they be, who, by force, break through, and, by force, justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels. For when men, by entering into society and civil government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves, those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, do rebellare -- that is, bring >>>back again the state of war, and are properly rebels, which they who are in power, by the "PRETENCE" they have to authority, the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the flattery of those about them being likeliest to do, theproper way to prevent the evil is to >>>show them the danger andinjustice of it >>>WHO are under the greatest temptation to runinto it.
John Locke #227 ..."And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels,
the "LEGISLATORS THEMSELVES, as has been shown, can be NO LESS esteemed so, when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties shall by force invade and endeavour to take them away; and so THEY putting themselves into a "state of war" with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels."
N.) Power Of Granting Exclusive Privileges By Federal (or any) Government "VOID"
And to the above we present this fact:
NOWHERE in our Constitutions or "Original Compacts" has any state or federal government been given the right or power to grant "Exclusive Privileges" to themselves, to any "one" or any group of people, foreign or domestic It is then a necessity that every state and local community act to remove ALL "Exclusive Privileges".
Virginia Ratifying Conventions 6-16-1788:
MR. PENDLETON: "...Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have "NO OPERATION" without the "LIMITS" of "THAT DISTRICT". Were Congress to make a law granting them an "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE" of trading to the East Indies, it could have "NO EFFECT" the MOMENT it would go without "THAT PLACE"; for their exclusive power is confined to "THAT DISTRICT". Were they to pass such a law, it would be "NUGATORY";and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indiesas well as the citizens of that district. This exclusive power is limited to "THAT PLACE" solely, for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary."
2.) Understanding that "Freedom of Contract" Does NOT Apply to "Exclusive Privileges".
A.) Actual And Fictitious Individuals
Corporations i.e. "FICTITIOUS INDIVIDUALS", must never be considered the same as real physical "ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS";
Whether as a "description of or definition in law" or otherwise.
In all cases, it is necessary to make laws to nullify, remove, prohibit and curb the collective privileged powers that such entities possess; Whether foreign or domestic.
B.) Unconstitutional Laws Can Never Set Precedence
We will first establish that the present use or past use of unconstitutional powers, can NEVER SET, NOR be a MEANS to SET PRECEDENCE in ANY form of law.
Whether it be "case law" or newly arrogated (so called, but not) constitutional law, or civil law, to attempt to establish a "PRETENSE OF AUTHORITY".
Even the attempt of the government to use the ratifying or amendment process is VOID when used as a means to allow the federal government to step outside the delegated powers or to ARROGATE ANY new powers, as it was expressly prohibited from doing by even "ONE STEP" (See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788).
The Ratifying or Amendment process is a process that was to be used ONLY to make adjustments within the DELEGATED powers; "NOT" to "ARROGATE NEW POWERS" WHICH IT WAS "EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED".
C.) Precedent and Prerogative; New Powers and Laws Prohibited
a.) Did the Founders step outside the Constitution?
Yes:
b.) Some for bad purposes such as in the "Alien and Sedition Act" signed by John Adams as president. An act soundly thrown down by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the "Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions" 1798; that reminded John Adams of the very limited powers of the federal government set forth in the Virginia Ratifying Conventions 10 years prior.
They have shown us by their ACTUAL EXAMPLE in those resolutions that: it is the "States Duty" under their "own authority" to "NULLIFY" "ALL" undelegated powers attempted by the Federal Government.
c.) And others for good purposes such as Thomas Jefferson in the Louisiana Purchase, that had expanded lands controlled of the federal government beyond the 10 miles square it is STILL constitutionally limited to.
d.) Difference between the two - Precedent and Prerogative.
Here is the "DIFFERENCE" between these two, that needs to be reviewed in Common Law.
We will quote from John Locke to establish a foundation in reasoning;
Locke 166: >>> ..."...That the reigns of "good princes" have been always most dangerous to the liberties of their people." "For when their successors, managing the government with different thoughts, would draw the actions of those good rulers into >>>"PRECEDENT" and make them the standard of "their" >>>"PREROGATIVE" -- as if what had been done only for the good of the people was a "right" in "them" to do for the harm of the people,"
And where we see that President John Adams was led by a "corrupt" legislature to sign a unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Act against both natural rights of the freedom of speech;
And an unconstitutional law by attempting to grant the federal government the power over aliens within the states;
As well as CREATING "laws and crimes powers of prosecution" on people who break laws they had NEWLY created (See again John Locke 214), which they had been given NO DELEGATED POWERS and NO AUTHORITY under the Constitution TO create:
Let's review those limits in the Kentucky Resolution 1798 as Thomas Jefferson Corrects The Federal Government while NULLIFYING their powers:
#2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having DELEGATED to Congress a "power" to punish:
a.) treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and
d.) felonies committed on the high seas (APP: on the High Seas ONLY; NOT WITHIN the States), and
e.) offenses against the law of nations,
AND "NO" "OTHER CRIMES", "WHATSOEVER";
and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as alsothe act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punishfrauds committed on the bank of the United States,"
(and>>>>>ALL THEIR "OTHER ACTS" which "ASSUME to CREATE", "DEFINE", or "PUNISH crimes","OTHER THAN THOSE SO ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,) are "ALTOGETHER VOID", and of "NO FORCE"; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of RIGHT, appertains SOLEY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective STATES, each within its own territory.
e.) We see that President Thomas Jefferson (falling into the "good princes" catagory) seeing an opportunity to expand free and independent republics and land for private property ownership, was acting as a good ruler for the people in general - whoever they may in the future be.
What Does John Locke say about "Good Princes":
John Locke 165."And therefore he that will look into the history of England will find thatprerogative was always largest in the hands of our wisest and best princes,because the people observing the whole tendency of their actions to be the public good,or if any human frailty or mistake (for princes are but men, made as others)appeared in some small declinations from that end, yet it was visible themain of their conduct tended to nothing but the care of the public.The people, therefore, finding reason to be satisfied with these princes,whenever they acted without, or contrary to the letter of the law, acquiesced in what they did, and without the least complaint,let them enlarge their prerogative as they pleased, judging rightly thatthey did nothing herein to the prejudice of their laws, since they actedconformably to the foundation and end of all laws -- the public good.
John Locke 166.Such God-like princes, indeed, had some title to arbitrary power by thatargument that would prove absolute monarchy the best government, as thatwhich God Himself governs the universe by, because such kings partake ofHis wisdom and goodness. Upon this is founded that saying,
>>>"That the reigns of good princes have been always most dangerous to the liberties of their people."For when their "successors", managing the government with different thoughts,would draw the actions of those good rulers into precedent and make themthe standard of their prerogative -- as if what had been done only for thegood of the people was a right in them to do for the harm of the people, if they so pleased --
it has often occasioned contest, and sometimes public disorders, before the people could recover their original right and get that to be declared not to be "PREROGATIVE" which truly was NEVER so; since it is impossibleanybody in the society should ever have a right to do the people harm, thoughit be very possible and reasonable that the people should not go about toset any bounds to the prerogative of those kings or rulers who themselvestransgressed not the bounds of the public good. For "prerogative is nothing but the power of doing public good without a rule."
f.) But that this one act or other single act of good, shouldNEVER be allowed the MEANS to set a "PRECEDENCE for a PREROGATIVE of POWER"against the people or their properties, OR to place power or land controlinto the hands of government OR those NOT DELEGATED to manage it, when the"original intent" was to make it available for "people" to settle upon thatland and own "PRIVATE TITLE" to it.
Thepurpose of Jefferson's act was the opportunity to expand free independentrepublics for private citizens to develop and hold "PRIVATE" PROPERTY;
>>>"NOT" to expand the powers or land ownership of the federal government, "NOR" to create endless management bureaucracies (federal, state and local) that burden citizens and taxpayers;
"NOR" was it for the empowerment or creation Exclusive Privileges; All soundly presented against in the Ratifying Conventions of 1788 that defined the peoples ORIGINAL INTENT for free government.
We can see however, that "federal lands" have "became a tool of federal power" through forced taxation support of union manned FOREST BUREAUCRACIES (US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) and CONDEMNATION power NO WHERE INTENDED over Private Property; A exercise of "Exclusive Privileges" both in management, use, and a means to manipulate local communities through "ENVIRONMENTAL MANDATES" ; Further, as a means to derive money to support a growing federally manned bureaucracy through government contracts for minerals and oil on federal land.
D.) Civil Case Law Limited by Common Law:
Regardless of how many times "case law" has set a "supposed precedence"; When NOT based upon the foundations of Common Law, or the "ORIGINAL COMPACT" made in the creation of a society, or a LIMITED COMPACT between societies with existing Compacts, THAT "case law" or "precedence" is NULL and VOID;
There is NO authority that can make it more. Even to try against either the Original Compact or Common Law, is to establish >>>>"Force without authority"; Which is the description of tyranny.
All Laws must have their foundation in God and Natures Law, i.e. the Law of Nature: John Locke 195. "I will not dispute "now" whether princes are exempt from the laws of their country, but this I am sure, they owe subjection to the laws of God and Nature. Nobody, NO power can exempt them from the obligations of that eternal law. Those are so great and so strong in the case of promises, that Omnipotency itself can be tied by them.Grants, promises, and oaths are bonds that hold the Almighty, whatever someflatterers say to princes of the world, who, all together, with all theirpeople joined to them, are, in comparison of the great God, but as a dropof the bucket, or a dust on the balance -- inconsiderable, nothing!
E.) Common Law Still Supreme
We know that Common law was never relinquished by any part of the Constitution and that it is a "PREEXISTING" Right "IN" the PEOPLE as against any State law as well as federal:
Virginia Ratifying Convention 1788 - George Nicholas: "..... But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". There is "NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion...."
"...A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING" claim to rights "IN" the people. They BELONG to us as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution...."
And as such, are reserved essential natural rights, the COMMON LAW rights whether acknowledged or not in the Original Compact(s) - i.e. Federal Constitution or State Constitutions, are reserved and cannot be removed, not by federal government, not by state governments, not by local governments.
F.) Condemnation And Imminent Domain Are Void
The"taking of property for public USE" clause in the Constitution, that wascreated only for the limited area within the 10 miles square of WashingtonDC, has since been ARROGATED to expand beyond the 10 mile LIMIT first grantedto the federal government in the Original Compact;
This ARROGATIONof power has been incorrectly interpreted as a PRECEDENT to do harm to PrivateProperty Holders by Federal State Local County and City governments; Andin doing so has exceeded the end or purpose of government which is to protect property, the end and purpose for which people have entered society:
JohnLocke: and Samuel Adams define this as: "...giving up that for which theyentered society to protect" as "To much an absurdity for any man to own":
Rights of the Colonists:
"...Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person or by his Representative.-- These are some of the first principles of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all free states, and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists." John Locke #138:
"Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own.
See the arrogation of power of condemnation at the civil war " VOID": ....(add)
G.) Taking can NEVER be Assumed to be a Power of CONDEMNATION
a.)NOR to be used for anything but a temporary use by state, or federal, whenin an emergency or war when necessary for the "purpose" of "protecting those very rights and properties of the owner" who will "remain the owner" after that "TEMPORARY" "USE".
To think it anything else than "temporary"would be to ignore that the Constitution has the Ratifying Conventions todefine it's meaning; every word of it; And that clearly indicated by JamesMadison and Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, todo anything to the contrary would be to EXPOUND on the GENERAL PHRASES of the CONSTITUTION to grant a power NOT INTENDED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
b.) NOR can it be used by the federal government outside Washington DC to acquire land from citizens; Which by the constitution is EXPRESSLY LIMITED the federal government to the 10 miles square of Washington DC.
James Madison: Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: (speaking of the limitations of the federal government) "I cannot comprehend" that the "power of legislating" over a "SMALL" district, which >>>"CANNOT EXCEED "TEN" MILES "square"", and "MAY NOT" "BE MORE" than "ONE" "MILE", will involve the dangers which he apprehends.
c.) NOR used by state or federal governments as an "excuse" to allow the very limited "precedent" to be made into the standard of "their" "prerogative", so to be used against the properties of the people.
d.) NOR used by Any private, state, federal or foreign Exclusive Privileged Entity to grant power over the properties of the people or their properties; Exclusive privileges being that which should not even exist.
e.) NOR used without a persons WILLING consent; and NOT a "INTIMIDATED willing consent":
As when imminent domain is attempted by saying the government, or a exclusive privilege, like a power company, forcing it's way through your land, is going to take it "anyway", so the person agrees under this pressure to give a "so called" "willing consent", which amounts to "NO consent":
See John Locke 186: when he explains that ANY "PROMISE OR CONSENT EXTORTED BY FORCE", can "NEVER" be considered "CONSENT"; "NOR" does any such "promise or consent" convey "ANY" right or title:
Locke #186. The conqueror, it is true, usually by the force he has over them, compels them,with a sword at their breasts, to stoop to his conditions, and submit tosuch a government as he pleases to afford them; but the inquiry is, whatright he has to do so? If it be said they submit by their own "consent",then this allows their "own consent" to be necessary to give the conquerora title to rule over them.
>>>>>>>It remains only to be considered whether "promises", extorted by force, "without right", can be thought "consent", and how far they "bind".
>>>>>>>To which I shall say, they "bind" >>>"NOT AT ALL"; because whatsoever another gets from me by force, I still retain the right of, and he is obliged presently to restore. He that forces my horse from me ought presently to restore him, and I have still a "RIGHT" to "RETAKE" him. Bythe same reason, he that forced a promise from me ought presently to restoreit -- i.e., quit me of the obligation of it; or I may resume it myself --i.e., choose whether I will perform it. For the law of Nature laying an obligation on me, only by the rules she prescribes, cannot oblige me by the violation of her rules; such is the extorting "ANYTHING" from me by force.
NOR does it "AT ALL" alter the case, to say I "gave my promise", no more than it excuses the force, and passes the right, when I put my hand in my pocket and deliver my purse myself to a thief who demands it with a pistol at my breast.
f.) Samuel Adams leaves no question as to what this meant:
Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonists:
... "THIRDLY, The supreme power (i.e. the LEGISLATIVE) >>> "CANNOT" Justly >>>"TAKE" from >>>"ANY" MAN, >>>"ANY" PART of his property without his >>>"CONSENT", in person
>>>OR (VERY IMPORTANT) by his >>>"REPRESENTATIVE".
-- These are some of the >>>"FIRST PRINCIPLES" of natural law & Justice, and the "GREAT BARRIERS of ALL FREE STATES", and of the British Constitution in particular. It is "utterly irreconcileable to these principles", and to "many other fundamental maxims of the COMMON LAW", common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists."
Which was Derived from John Locke on CIVIL GOVERNMENT:
John Locke: 138. "THIRDLY, the supreme power CANNOT "TAKE" from ANY man ANY part of his property without his >>>>>>>"OWN" "CONSENT". (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the PRESERVATION of PROPERTY being the END of government, and THAT for which (WHY) men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have PROPERTY, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the END for which they entered into it; >>>too gross an ABSURDITY for any man to own."
It says "CONSENT". "NO consent", "NO take" "NO condemn".
See anything about "Just Compensation?" Of course not.
g.) The "Take and Compensation" Clause in the Constitution was a power LIMITED within the 10 miles square of Washington DC for a "limited purpose" "THERE" within "THAT PLACE ONLY".
See Supremacy Clause Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; This is a SPECIAL "LIMITED"power; Not under the general powers of legislation. And the federal governmentAND THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES are expressly prohibited from ARROGATING ANYNEW POWER; The Amendment process is for making corrections in the DELEGATEDpowers of the ORIGINAL COMPACT; Not as a means to ARROGATE NEW POWERS.
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
George Nicholas: "... The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained "NO NEW grant of power"
Edmund Pendleton: "... With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and 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, I understand that clause as NOT going a "single step beyond" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by THIS Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,
(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers".
h.) The principles are found in this document as well;
Patrick Henry: "...One of our first complaints, under the former government, was the quartering (i.e. "TAKING" PROPERTY TO QUARTER THEM) of troops upon us. This was one of the PRINCIPLE reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain.
James Madison: "...He says that one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution, was, that a standing army was quartered upon us. This was not the WHOLE complaint. We complained because it was done without the "LOCAL Authority" of this country without the "CONSENT" of "the PEOPLE" of America.
i.) Again review, Common law is a right "IN" the people and remains;
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 - George Nicholas: "But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". There is >>>"NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion."... "A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING" claim to rights "IN" the PEOPLE. They belong to us as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution.
j.) The founders were clear that NO REGULATION would be made that MAY effect the citizens of the UNION AT LARGE
Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, THIS CLAUSE does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)or to make ANY REGULATION that may affect the interests of the citizens of the "Union at large".But it gives them power over the local police of the place, so as to be securedfrom any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attackupon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within "THAT" district.What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to thegeneral powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall be.
k.) This restricts property from being taken from even those convicted of crimes.
(See also John Locke );
WRIT OF ATTAINER: The United States Constitution FORBIDS WRIT OF ATTAINDER under Article I, Section 9.
CONSTITUTION: Article I, Section 9: "....No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
It is just as "absurd",as John Locke puts it, to think that the government which has been restrictedfrom taking property even from criminals; That it would have been given thepower to TAKE from the citizens of the "Union at large" for ANY reason andKEEP it or give it to others.
l.) States and Federal governments must abide by these laws, to "be of" authority;
Or else any legislation to the contrary is VOID;
If enforced, it is a force used without authority, and defined as an act of Tyranny and Rebellion of the laws and an act of WAR against the people:
See John Locke on Civil Government when either executive or legislative acts beyond the original authorities granted it by the people who formed it in the Original Compact:
John Locke: 226. Thirdly: I answer, that this power in the "people" of providing for their safety anew by a new legislative when their legislators have "acted CONTRARY to their trust" by >>>>>>>"invading their property", is the best fence against rebellion, and the probable means to hinder it.
For rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but authority, which is founded only in the constitutions (i.e. "ORIGINAL COMPACTS") and laws of the government: those, whoever they be, who, by force, break through, and, by force, justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels. For when men, by entering into society and civil government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the "preservation of PROPERTY", peace, and unity amongst themselves, those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, do rebellare -- that is, bring back again the state of war, and are properly rebels, which they who are in power, by the >>>"PRETENCE" they have to "AUTHORITY", the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the flattery of those about them being likeliest to do, the"proper way" to "prevent the evil" is to "SHOW THEM the danger and injusticeof it" who are under the "greatest temptation to run into it".
John Locke: 227. In both the forementioned cases, wheneither the legislative is changed, OR the legislators act >>>"contraryto the end for which they were constituted", "those who are" guilty are guiltyof rebellion. For if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust,he thereby takes away the umpirage which every one had consented to for apeaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state ofwar amongst them. They who remove or change the legislative take away thisdecisive power, which nobody can have but by the appointment and consentof the people, and so destroying the authority which the people did, andnobody else can, set up, and introducing a power which the people hath notauthorised, actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force withoutauthority; and thus by removing the legislative established by the society,in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their ownwill, they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the state of war.
And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the "LEGISLATORS THEMSELVES", as has been shown, can be NO LESS esteemed so, when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties shall by force "invade and endeavour to take them away"; and so they putting "themselves" into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the "greatest aggravation", rebellantes, "REBELS"."
3.) "True Free Trade" Cannot Exist with the Existence of State Born Monopolies and Cartels; i.e. PRIVATIZED SOCIALISM;
A fact very clearly understood by those actual individuals when they go against a corporation in a court of law;
Theindividual with limited or non existent financial resources, representedby himself or maybe an attorney, will find himself overwhelmed by 3, 5 or more attorneys and a host of advisors and minds on the other side of the court;
Where every word is construed to the favor of the collective;
It is no wonder that the definitions and precedence ruled in our courts have no resemblance of that intended by the Founders.
And that competition is near nonexistent from individuals against the greater financial might of the State Born Private Exclusive Privileged Collectives.
Sheer numbers and financial clout negate competition against them in all but a few instances;
These are Exclusive FINANCIAL SOCIETIES; Not local Societies represented by representatives of the local public's choosing;
Yet as they grow, dependency upon them increases, and competition and trade slowly gives way to those larger financial PRIVATIZED SOCIALIST SOCIETIES.
4.) Effects of "State Born" "Monopoly and Cartels" on True Free Trade and Independent Business.
a.) Making that which is illegal, legal.
What is the difference of 100 independent business men using their combined financial might to establish 100 stores and agree between themselves what prices should be charged; An Act which is a criminal offense of CARTEL;
And that of 100 members of a Corporation, i.e. a state born exclusive privilege of "legal" Cartel, using their combined financial might to establish 100 stores and agree between themselves what prices should be charged?
Nothing.
However,where government would jail the first group for price fixing as a "ILLEGAL"Cartel, That same government awards "Exclusive Privileges" tothe Corporation to continue operations and calls it a "LEGAL" activityof a state approved Collective.
This can be compared to gas stations in the oil industries.
b.) "OVERLAP" of Exclusive Privileged entities.
Compound this with the proximity of other exclusive privileged entities, and the death of true free enterprise is certain;
Independentfree trade is both limited and controlled by the exclusive privileged, whoneed only to look down the street to their so called competitor to equalhis price and blanket the market to their "collective" dictates.
Illustrated Graph:
c.) Effects of Undelegated Government Bureaucracies and Unions ( Undelegatedas under the "Original Constitutional Compact(s)").
Now let us say we expand government, by allowing Unions to dictate government wages to attract people into undelegated bureaucracies granting them the power to expand yet further at their own dictates.;
(That is Undelegated, as not granted under the Original Compact - Constitution(or under state constitutions) - which it was not intended that the federalgovernment was ever to exceed the 10 miles square of Washington DC)
This,not only reduces the private sector business, but also creates an ever expandingvacuum of costly regulations to support the regulatory bureaucracies;
Further, it begins to change what should be limited public "needful" "SERVITUDE", into "life time" "needless" regulatory "PROFESSIONS".
5.) Effects of "Privatized Governments", - i.e. "Private State Born Exclusive Privileged Collectives", "Are" Privatized Socialism;
Which are: All types of Corporations, including City Corporations and the effect on Local County Legislative Governments, citizens, private property and independent business.
a.) City Corporations and Counties forcing people into their "Corporate" "City" district through "ANNEXATION".
b.) Also use of county laws from exclusive privileged city interest through ZONING LAWS;
So to PROHIBIT new cities and populated areas and counties from even forming.
Laws changing which constantly raises the "populationbar" in which an area can become a county so to all but make new countiesor towns form and the ability to be allowed to regulate "themselves" impossible.
This abuse of "refusing large districts of people" wherever they that wished it, was listed as one of the definitions of and an ACT of "TYRANNY" in the Declaration of Independence.
Declaration of Independence 1776 - Grievance #3: "He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of LARGE DISTRICTS of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature; a right inestimable to them and formidable to TYRANTS only."
6.) The Differences Between Privately Owned Companies, and Corporations.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation and http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/162.asp
Common Law recognized Corporations as Exclusive privileges and limited them from title in water;
Holding that they were limited to beneficial use in water that could not be left in non use for long or rights would be lost;
This is as opposed to individuals right of title which so long as not abandoned, could not loose the right from "non use" as it was a right of TITLE; the water was "attached to the land".
a.) Personal ownership and responsibility;
PersonalOwnership provides a responsibility that is in many cases removed by thecollective powers of a state born Exclusive Privilege.
b.) "Limited Liability";
"Limited Liability" is what many fall upon to bolster their advocacy to corporations.
However this is a Band-Aid to another problem; and can be corrected by simply setting limits to ridiculous financial damage suits and claims;
Instead of creating whole state born Exclusive Privileged entities to limit the effects of weak liability laws that are allowed to be misused by legislatures, judges, judgments and the courts.
Also,the fact that there even exists large private collectives, creates a imbalancein responsibility and punishment; If a "actual" individual was indeed libelfor some act, $1000.oo may be either adequate punishment or pay restitution;But a corporation under the "legal description" as a "individual" consisting of 2000 actual individualswho is liable that must pay $1,000.oo, can hardly consider .50 cents pereach of it's individuals a deterrent to any criminal offense; The personwishing restitution against a large collective would see that as no meaningfulrestitution either; So the liability becomes distorted.This is then compounded by Insurance companies and lawyers allowed to capitalizeon the situation. And then you have the occurrences of million dollarsuits against corporate companies for having hot coffee being spilt in lapsby customers as in the MacDonalds restaurant case; Can we suppose that asmall one man mobile coffee shop can be tried and compared to the same milliondollar liability who has $10,000 in business assets and $150,000 in homeassets?
It presents that there needs to be limits and standards,but so long as there are State Born Exclusive Privileges of Cartel, whichare large private socialist styled organizations, justice will be ill perceivedand dictated to the fullest extent by opportunists in the field of attorneys.
Therefor it is clear that state born Exclusive Privileges must be REMOVED from all societies.
First it is necessary to remove the "invented need", for privileges, arising from ill defined and exaggerated liability issues.
c.) "Debt Liability Limitations"
Asfar back as the Magna Carta 1215, liability of a farmer could not be a meansto invade his home, farm property, mule or plow which he made his living.
This limited the debt and placed the responsibility on the lender not to lend beyond the borrowers means or trust.
Biblical laws that had been established in societies, forgave all debts "every calendar 7 years" for the entire populous, this made financially enslaving someone through debt impossible and placed the responsibility upon the lender not to lend more than can be reasonably be paid back within the remaining time left of those 7 years.
d.) national and local debt liability upon citizens
ThomasJefferson indicated favorably for such limits to debt, if not by a universalcalendar time, by limits for each individual;
Thomas Jefferson: To James Madison Paris, Sep. 6, 1789:
"...To render this conclusion palpable by example, suppose that Louis XIV. and XV. had contracted debtsin the name of the French nation to the amount of 10.000 milliards of livresand that the whole had been contracted in Genoa. The interest of this sumwould be 500 milliards, which is said to be the whole rent-roll, or nettproceeds of the territory of France. Must the present generation of men haveretired from the territory in which nature produced them, and ceded it tothe Genoese creditors? No.They have the same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as thepreceding generations had. They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature. They then and their soil are by nature clear of the debts of their predecessors.Again suppose Louis XV. and his contemporary generation had said to the moneylenders of Genoa, give us money that we may eat, drink, and be merry in ourday; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end of 19. years,you shall then forever after receive an annual interest of ')">(*) 12.'5per cent. The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the living,eaten, drank, and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged toapply the produce of the earth and of their labour to replace their dissipations?Not at all.
I suppose that the received opinion, that the public debts of one generation devolve on the next,has been suggested by our seeing habitually in private life that he who succeedsto lands is required to pay the debts of his ancestor or testator, withoutconsidering that this requisition is municipal only, not moral, flowing fromthe will of the society which has found it convenient to appropriate thelands become vacant by the death of their occupant on the condition of apaiment of his debts; but that between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another."
Theinterest of the national debt of France being in fact but a two thousandthpart of it's rent-roll, the payment of it is practicable enough; and so becomesa question merely of honor or expediency. But with respect to future debts; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neitherthe legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, thanthey may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19. years? And that all future contracts shall be deemed void as to what shall remain unpaid at the end of 19. years from their date? This would put the lenders, and the borrowers also, on their guard. By reducing too the faculty of borrowing within its natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, towhich too free a course has been procured by the inattention of money lendersto this law of nature, that succeeding generations are not responsible for the preceding...."
e.) Sanctity of Property being apart from Man's Employ, Service or Libel Actions
InJohn Locke's Second Treaties on Civil Government , Locke presents the sanctityin private property; That though the government in protecting the greaterwhole of the people can command a man into the mouth of a cannon, the governmentcould not touch one farthing of his property, as one had nothing todo with the other, Where his life could be sacrificed for the survival ofsociety, his property HAD NOTHING to do with it;
John Locke #139: "...but yet we see that neither the sergeant that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money; nor the general that can condemn him to death for deserting his post, or not obeying the most desperate orders, cannot yet with all his absolute power of life and death dispose of one farthing of that soldier's estate, or seize one jot of his goods;whom yet he can command anything, and hang for the least disobedience. Becausesuch a blind obedience is necessary to that end for which the commander hashis power -- viz., the preservation of the rest, but the disposing of his goods "HAS NOTHING to do with it".
TheConstitution recognized this limitation in the amendments which preventedthe government from taking the property of a criminal:
WRIT OF ATTAINDER: The United States Constitution FORBIDS WRIT OF ATTAINDER under Article I, Section 9. This restricts property from being taken from even those convicted of crimes.
Constitution Article I, Section 9 "....No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Andthough it is presented that in crime there are two restitution's that canbe granted a victim, one of criminal and the other of restitution orreparation to the victim, these are founded in common law (See John Locke #10 & #11), as that which is always balanced with "REASON" which "is that law" (See John Locke #6); limited to Original Compacts and Form of Government Agreed Upon (See John Locke #239); This reason and the understanding of limitations set down by Original Compacts of governments that define the unchanging principles of law which is the construction of REPUBLICS, and that restrain governments, is what has been lost to the courts, and it is necessary to reestablish.
f.) Exclusive Privileges in light of Unions and Corporations.
Oneexcuse for corporate limited liability was to protect personal property liability,which was by common law already protected; A common ploy of government isto sell the need for a protection you already possess in Common Law.
was to balance the existence of Unions, effects on Companies
The However this worsens the situation by allowing the creation of one state born exclusive privilege, then add another state born exclusive privilege to combat the first.
Granted, that the beginning of the problem was wages given of large companies that created a growing labor industry not unlike slavery,with wages that gave no chance of betterment; or similar dependency of theever encompassing corporations having at that time no "minimum wage" lawswhich would have solved the largest part of that problem as it does today;
g.) The "Union excuse" however created another problem - Maximum Wages:
"MAXIMUM WAGES" (NOT minimum wages) i.e. also known as PREVAILING WAGES....
7.) WAGES and REASON
A.) The Principle
Let us review the PRINCIPLE behind wages from the "Absolute Rights of the Colonists" by Samuel Adams: (derived from John Locke on Civil Government)
"Absolute Rights of the Colonists" Samuel Adams: In thestate of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servants forthe defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should pay themreasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable natural right to an honourable support from the same principle "that the labourer is worthy of his hire"; BUT THEN the >>>SAME community which they serve, ought to be assessors of their pay:
Governors have NO RIGHT to "SEEK" what they please;
by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable "SERVANTS" of the society,
they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants.
Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs. And in both casesmore are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulatedprice, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--"
B.) The Subjects
The subjects here are
a.) government salaries
b.) private salaries;
c.) and who is in control of the amount that is paid;
and THAT control is in the hands of the citizen over government salaries and in the private sector, employer over employee.
C.) The Corrupting Factor of Allowing Exclusive Privileges
What is never discussed here is the existence and addition of "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES",
A Factor which is not even supposed to exist;
An additional "factor" that completely corrupts the above "determination of a standard".
The "SEEKING WHAT THEY PLEASE"by Union lobbyists, Union manned and self advancing government bureaucracies,Special Interests, Corporate Contracts, as well as the crossing of borderswith federal or out of area wage standards; Such as prevailing wages andCorporate Contracts pressing exaggerated profits or competitive professionalwages based or not based upon non-government markets; Burden communitiesof lower average citizen wages and demand through forced taxation to payfor their extreme demands.
These practices "UNBALANCE THE PRINCIPLE" for which REASONABLE WAGES are to be CONSENSUALLY OFFERED.
The addition that corrupts both private and public affairs and wage determination, is the "addition" of "Exclusive Privileges", which should not ever exist.
D.) Wage and Contracts Argument
a.) Private "Exclusive Privileges" such as Corporations are often heard to complain of raised minimum wages being too high;
Then turn to establish government corporate contracts charging MAXIMUM so called "professional" WAGES to increase profits; Also listing in those contracts MAXIMUM, i.e. PREVAILING WAGES of Unions;
This to provide more funds to the CORPORATE HEADS.
b.) Union "Exclusive Privileges" complaining of minimum wages being too low, then forcing maximum wages i.e. prevailing wages of Unions in government jobs / expanded bureaucracies through forced taxation, and concerning themselves more with that aspect and not the aspect of true free trade which they daily regulate out of business;
Their concern chiefly to raise wages so the private sector can be milked harder for more taxes to expand their Government Union bureaucracies for creating YET MORE REGULATIONS requiring MORE BUREAUCRACY.
This to provide more funds to the UNION HEADS.
c.)This is also a factor in Tax supported Special Interest that derive fundsfrom tax rightoffs, government grants and other forms; Using both tactics.
This to provide more funds to the SPECIAL INTEREST HEADS.
E.) Applying Reason of the Founders and Common Law
It would be far better that:
a.) A reasonable consensual minimum wage be SET BY LOCAL COUNTIES who will be paying those salaries and know what they can and cannot afford; Not by states or federal, as they do now;
b.) Further to include it to also limit maximum wagesfor all federal, states and county employees salaries and labor contractswithin a counties borders to average citizens salaries;
c.) This will both to prevent the equivalent of financial slavery in the lowest wages, and limit the salaries of government servitude to a consensual "local community" determined salary;
d.) The maximum limit will be set by a local county driven "average" established by what general citizen non government salaries are in that county, so to set a limit to all government agency personnel within their county borders;
e.) REMOVE ALL maximum or "prevailing" wages and contractual expenditures forced upon us from "privileged corporate contracts" and "maximum union wages" through unconsensual taxation; as we are having done to us at this time.
f.) Establish Local taxes being the source for ALL government personal (federal, state, county) salaries present within their borders;
g.) Including all visitation salaries collected by government employees or representatives when in those counties, so not to burden any society with taxation not in relationship to the peoples salaries of each society.
h.)Establish the process that ALL out of area government visitors or employees,pick up a punch card as they enter, use while actually at work in a givenarea, and turn the card in when you leave; No more free lunches. Includesall government and political positions;
i.)Establish this process in the case of federal workers within the state oroutside Washington D.C., That the LOCAL COMMUNITY where they are should still determine their wage while they are there, and not be burdened by, nor allow other communities to be burdened by federally dictated wages.
j.) Remove all Union labor or Union determined salaries from governmental positions; As this is the same as "Governors seeking what they please" as clearly described here by Samuel Adams:
Rights of the Colonists:"... In the state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servantsfor the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should paythem reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of commondefence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable naturalright to an honourable support from the same principle "that the laboureris worthy of his hire" but then the same community which they serve, ought to be assessors of their pay: Governors have no right to "seek what they please"; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants. Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--
8.) MAXIMUM WAGES are a product of a Corrupted Government.
Presently with regard to GOVERNMENT salaries, Exclusive Privileges are that:
a.) Governors today "SEEK" WHAT THEY PLEASE by voting in their own salary;
b.) Government Employees belonging to UNIONS aggressively press their salary onto government; "UNIONS" "SEEK" what government union employees should be paid, and lobby to force the salary they wish; Meaning that Governors (and employees) Use "Others" to "SEEK" WHAT THEY PLEASE
c.) The Exclusive Privilege is that Unions SEEKS a "MAXIMUM" WAGE through government established pay scales or contract determined wages derived from forced taxation; Established by a state allowed, or state born exclusive privilege of UNION.
d.) Government salaries are NOT determined by open public vote, up, down or removal of the position altogether. The PRIVILEGE is that the government employees salaries are NOT directly assessed by the "community to which they serve"; County or local community citizens have little or no say in determining wages for which they will be forced to pay through forced and often unenumerated and arbitrary taxation; Federal pay of employees in a county is determined in Washington, not by the local community in which they serve; State employees salaries of employees in a county are determined at the state capitol location and not by the local community in which they serve; And all are effected by "exclusive privileges". Governmentgrants themselves wages, insurance and benefits, and contracts are oftendecided by government employees themselves, with union or corporate and unionlabor in mind.
e.) The subject of the federal government stepping outside it's delegated LIMITED ownership of land createsthe issues of: FIRST exceeding the 10 square mile limitation of land possession(aside from forts in areas not yet a state; Which today there is no need,as all lands have become states; Then creating bureaucracies and "Departments"in those areas to manage what had been intended for the states managementand THEN controlling wages for those in the bureaucracies and "Departments";
f.) This extends to establishing wages based upon private contractors and Exclusive Privileged Corporate/Union contracts that SEEK PROFESSIONAL MAXIMUM WAGES; and NOT wages determined by LOCAL communities "for which they serve"; The Federal legislatures establish such expenditures in contracts, often lobbied by Corporations or Labor Union for spending, withoutany obligation to confer with distant communities on such MAXIMUM salariesand PROFESSIONAL expenditures that will bear the burden through "FORCED TAXATION". Often supported with local non government citizen salaries that are far below those that are under federal Labor Union Wage/ Professional Corporate Salary contracts.
g.) This is why we propose that government employment, whether under salary or contract, will be limited to the AVERAGE NON GOVERNMENT NON CORPORATE citizen salary of the local COUNTY community in which they serve;
h.)This wage limit to be established whether it be in common labor, high riskor what would otherwise in the private sector be a highly trained profession,as SERVICE IN GOVERNMENT is a SERVITUDE and NOT a business or profession. Placinggovernment labor where it should be, under control of local communities,and any service limited in time to 4 years maximum for any person.
9.) MINIMUMWAGE when Reasonable and Consented by a "LOCAL" Society, is a Necessary andRightful Remedy to Curtail "Financial Slavery":
Presently with regard to private salaries:
a.) Government by citizen approval sets a "MINIMUM" wage; This at first may seem contrary to the above statement by Samuel Adams in the Rights of the Colonists (derived from John Locke on Civil government); but has been necessary due to historical misuse of workers to a point near, if not fully, the "Act of Slavery";
b.) The abolition of slavery was a correct act established in JohnLocke #6 "...that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm anotherin his life, health, liberty or possessions", the Declaration of Independence "all men are created equal" and the Constitutional amendment that armorized the meaning and duty to enforce it.
c.) The term "reasonable wages" as presented in the "Rights of the Colonists" comes into play;
Would it be reasonable to pay someone more than you earn? Of course not.; As well it would not be advisable as a collective society to pay a SERVANT, regardless of his position, to have a greater financial stature than those not paid by the collective; as this empowers the servant above his masters and endangers society; This is clearly presented by Samuel Adams in the Rights of the Colonists:
"...Inthe state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servantsfor the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should pay them >>>"REASONABLE" wages. Governmentwas instituted for the purposes of common defence; and those who hold thereins of government have an equitable natural right to an honourable supportfrom the same principle "that the labourer is worthy of his hire" BUT THEN the same community which they serve, ought to be assessors of their pay: Governors have NO RIGHT to seek what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable SERVANTS of the society, >>>>>>>they would SOON become Absolute MASTERS, Despots, and Tyrants.Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in hisprivate affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give andgrant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--"
Have we not enough evidence today to see the truth of this statement,Unions, Corporations, special interests DEMANDING their pay amount (or strike),Highly paid government "REPRESENTATIVES" corrupting our constitutional principlesand laws, attacking private property and means of use of it, and invadingour essential rights, as our government servants imposing force without authorityattempt daily to be our masters,
d.) FINANCIAL SLAVERY.
There are many forms of slavery; "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is one.
To illustrate this point as to the act of imposing FINANCIAL SLAVERY, review "Company Stores" in the United States and "Farm Labor" practices in South America;
Both using the same tactic which we will cover more later, the "Convenience trap" to those willing or desperate;This is a situation created by the employer in which the income of the workeris such as it will not allow for betterment; and in the case of Company Storesand Farm communities in South America, the company or farm stores are theonly stores within accessible distance from the work place;
Note See: Samuel Adams: "Through FEAR, FRAUD or MISTAKE" with regard to VOLUNTARY SLAVERY
The Company Store as history shows in the United States, and Farm Labor Store as is practiced still in Brazil each proved more than willing to provide "CREDIT" for necessary things, but at a rate that the salary that they offer will never be able to pay the day to day expenses and the interest on the loan by the borrower; The borrower falling into financial debt from USURY to the Company Store or Farm Store is soon "INDENTURED" to the company; This is known as "FINANCIAL SLAVERY";
The CRIMES used to ENSLAVE are what is known as CONFIDENCE ARTISTRY and USURY.
In the United States today, the CREDIT CARD is the next generation COMPANY STORE, selling confidence in the form of CONVENIENCE
Bankruptcy Laws were enacted to protect against such Company fraud, USURY, Economic as well as other factors and borrower mistakes.
10.) Exclusive Privileges Corrupt the Term Free Market and Free Trade
The other factor is "what is determined" a "TRUE free market", and how does "exclusive privileges" effectually corrupt the term.
Aprivate man given the absolute right to pay what he pleases to employeeswithin a "true" free market works, as there would be "true" free marketcompetition; A employee if paid near nothing could find someone who willpay more, and the employer may find it hard or impossible to find anyonewho will work for him unless he raised what he would pay;
But as soon as wide spread collectivism, unionism or corporatism OR a Limiting Factor or Controlled Source is in some way established through "REGULATION"; market competition becomes limited, and the market on labor begins to be controlled by the collectives - governments, corporations, unions or large private companies and not the "free" market.
The true free market or true free trade then ceases.
These LIMITED FACTORS and CONTROLLED SOURCES today are often "CREATED" by government regulation and the grantingof "exclusive privileges" to itself, upon state allowed entities, and throughexclusive privileges in many different forms.
This limitation on "true" free market and the willingness of some to misuse others, validates the necessity of a bare minimum wage which is locally CITIZEN CONTROLLED;
HOWEVER, there is NO EXCUSE for the "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE" of >>>"MAXIMUM" wagesand benefits pressed upon government by Unions, employees or other; Nor governmentpressing such upon private citizens or their business; All salaries mustbe from the express creation, control, consent of the local citizens (County) and the ability to redress their acceptance or refusal at every election cycle; The Amounts determined by the local county community for which any government employee, representative contracted labor actually serves.
"Absolute Rights of the Colonists": "...Inthe state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servantsfor the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should paythem reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable natural right to an honourable support from the same principle "that the labourer is worthy of his hire"; BUT THEN the >>>SAME community which >>>they serve, ought to be assessors of their pay: Governors have NO RIGHT to "SEEK" what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants. Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs. And in both casesmore are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulatedprice, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--"
Free market salaries, has to do with the ability of not being dependent upon a artificially limited or controlledsource of revenue, raw material, or liberty of property which has been predeterminedthrough the government's regulations or in granting of "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES"; A practice that places limits on opportunity of true free market competition and CORRUPTS the DEFINITION of a "true" "free market" economy where exclusive privileges simply would not exist.
Governmentgranting contracts only to exclusive privileged intities, or that only exclusiveprivileged collective cartels such as corporations and unions can afford,is a regularly occurring practice in the oil industry on federal lands, asin other industries including arms manufacture for the military.
11.) ZONING - a Government State Born Exclusive Privilege Between Citizens.
a.) Exclusive Privileges "Between Citizens"
The state "defining separate uses" and then attempting to sell the public that they are "equal within the definition" of "each" of those "particular uses" they "grant" you is the first abuse of legislative power in the state granting Exclusive Privileges through "ZONING".
b.) Population Privilege, a Product of Zoning and a Vacuum of Power
Asthe practice of zoning continues, population in "city" and "commercial" zonesnot only focus trade to those areas and away from any surrounding areas,they by law SEVERELY LIMIT or PROHIBIT commercial and population districts from EVEN FORMING;
Prohibiting the free forming of large districts of people anywhere is just one of the listed acts of a tyrannical government presented in the Declaration of Independence:
Grievance #3.) "Hehas refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts ofpeople, unless those people would relinquish the right of representationin the legislature; a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrantsonly."
Grievance #7.) "He has endeavored to preventthe population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws fornaturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage theirmigration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."
Mostzoning will LIMIT populations from settlement, by restricting farms and woodlandsto 1 home per 120 acres (unless it can produce 80,000 annually - Oregon Law),and then as the land nears a city center, a progressively smaller divisionsare "allowed" by the county; This is coupled with LAWS LIMITING and RESTRICTINGwhat KIND of business you can practice in these areas; This limits what a person can compete in; and where it may grant privileges both ways, it severely limits areas outside the city or county centers.
Somerestrictions are federally mandated restrictions accepted by states and countiesbribed by federal money that should never have left the state; Derived bythe unconstitutional income tax system.
ZONING restricts "true free trade" and grants EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES "between citizens" as well as creating an imbalance of representation and power; This condition is where populated areas begin to dictate laws to the less populated areas, thuscreating the same corruption between populated local districts and that oflesser populated rural, farm and forest inhabitants; As Distant Legislatures have upon states and local communities.
c.) Water, the Final Abuse of Power by the Practice of Zoning
Aspopulated areas are created by zoning and Planning practices, water thenis then condemned from rightful owners to support the populations needs;Instead of paying a owner a ongoing fair market price for it so he and hiscan benefit fully, they simply take it by condemnation to make money for their "government city or county bureaucracies". This is wholly against free trade, against private property and against all principles of free government and common law. Thecondemnation clause for the federal government was limited to the 10 milessquare of Washington DC; The laws altered after the civil war of so called"immanent domain" do not change this fact and are used without any authority granted in the Constitution, and therefore VOID and of NO FORCE; The Absolute Rights of the Colonists establish this fact of Common Law which is a reserved Essential Natural Right that no form of government can alter:
"There shall be one rule of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough."7
Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from ANY man, ANY PART of his property without his consent, in person >>> or by his "Representative".--
These are some of the first principles of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all free states, and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcileable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists. That these Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties and privileges of men and freemen, born in Britain, is manifest, not only from the Colony charter, in general, but acts of the British Parliament.
12.) In a Completely Free Society Without Property or Business Limitations and Exclusive Privileges:
a.)No Zoning laws (a state born exclusive privilege limiting land use) to keepone from selling whatever he wanted, from any where he wanted, doing anybusiness he wished regardless of where his land was located; or buildinganything and buying or selling any sized parcel of land; (This would notexclude reasonable building codes for SAFETY ONLY were "absolutely necessary"or laws that would establish "reasonable" pollution standards)
b.) NoSweeping Environmental laws, or exclusive privileges derived from such laws,to keep a person from mining or cutting trees down and selling as he wantedon his own property (so long as it did not directly physicallyinjure another's property or person); or equally competing on land or waterthat was owned by no one - such as drilling for oil, fishing, mining, cuttingtimber; Government Fees must reflect ACTUAL costs of a "limited" governmentfor regulation dictated by local consensual vote regarding both fee, governmentlabor and government; Salaries to not exceed the average salary of the localcounty that they serve.
c.) Simple,clear, obvious laws that do not allow pollution to go upon another personsland, or a building "safety code" only if for establishing reasonable constructionstandards; But Recognize the INDIVIDUAL's RIGHT to BUILDWITHOUT GOVERNMENT REVIEW as to use, location, type or style. Height limitationonly where it will cast shadow upon another person's property for more than5 minutes in the shortest day of winter - a limitation that can be wavedby any property owner it may effect. Existing buildings or structures before enactment will take precedence under the grandfather principle..
d.)Where the government actually protected private property, instead of allowinginroads from government regulations and from others upon it, such as taxes,liabilities and condemnations.
e.) Where government did not grant itself exclusive privileges,by first creating the power of zoning and regulating where, what and howcitizens can sell their property; Where government did not limit retail usesby citizens within cities growth boundaries then charge him great fees thatthey alone can collect in these areas, or that they have "unrestricted jurisdiction"in which to charge these fees; Where government did not create tiresomeregulations only the very wealthy or financially able collective powers (exclusiveprivileged corporations and others) can afford, before he can even begin.....The Exorbitant fees established Often by MAXIMUM WAGES dictated by UNIONS and to Finance future projects not related to the building at hand;
Where The local government instead would establish MINIMUMWAGES Set by "LOCAL LEGISLATIVE"; or Low bid on contracts by ANYONE - ANYINDIVIDUAL in piece work; and not granted to Exclusive Privileged CORPORATEContractors and UNION Contracts.
f.) Where a person was not taxed beyond reason by arbitrary, undelegated, unenumerated taxation in which he has no direct annual voting effect determined upon local need, enumeration and consent;
THEN...it could be said, without any such governments arbitrary laws and limitationskeeping him from freely competing, so to feel free to compete; Prohibiting ALL federal, state or other born Exclusive Privileges of Collective Cartels from being granted by the state, NOR protected by government in ways so that exclusive privileges cannot be competed against;
THEN ...it could be said, a single individual and most anyone could stand a chanceand ability to choose another route to both earn more and compete in a trulyfree market without becoming or involving one's self with an existing state born exclusive privilege, or at the very least, find greater opportunity in the attempt;
But this is not generally the case, and the very few completely independent "success stories" are often attached to, or dependent upon, those very same exclusive privileges that have been granted by government bureaucracies or granted to a state born Exclusive Privileged ENTITY;
OR successes ofwhich had their roots in or had been created BEFORE the limitations on propertyuse came to pass in our legal systems, and BEFORE the harsh taxation andregulatory fees (which should be a state we return to);
This is not to take away from the personal independent effort or personal success and achievement, but to show that the SOURCE that compels or finances is usually drawn from a corrupted system of Exclusive Privileges that have entwined themselves throughout our society.
Where the privileged source may provide one route of success, it often prohibits many others from achieving;
Acomparison would be a man privileged by the Soviet Union and granted an exclusiveprivilege to design an item for the Soviet Union; at the exclusion and limitationsimposed upon other men wishing to do the same; Taking into considerationthe power and manipulation that the Soviet Union can employ against any competitionto it from the sheer encompassing involvement it has in the majority of facetsof a society.
That a privileged man may succeed at the exclusionof all other competition that would normally result in a truly free society,does not lessen the success of the one man, but recognizes that there are two paths of societies, one of control and privileges granted by collectives (private or governmental), and the other that is of individual achievement though ones own accomplishments as against all others equally that have no exclusive privileges.
Would removing all organized exclusive privileges take away all special advantages one may find in a free society, no; But it would remove the organizations that slowly encompass and remove most free resulting natural competition from arising to compete with them or others "so privileged" by either the state, or privileged by State Born Exclusive Privileged Entities. It would create more true free trade competition and less privileged class limitations.
13.) Death as Nature's Competition and Distribution of Wealth VS Corporations, Unions, Collectives and Government "Land Trusts" Exceeding the Term.
Advantages of Entity Immortality:
Socialism of any kind continues indefinitely; That is, until it's natural occurring form of corruption it grants itself through Exclusive Privileges,destroys itself; It does not usually die as a result of one or more individualsdying at it's head. It is more likely to be changed, by way of takeover byanother collective entity; A name change into yet a larger collective entity,by which removes more and more of the competition around it.
Privately owned companiesmay in some instances extend a ways past the life of the company originators,but usually not much farther. The turnover or division is much more regular,which makes way for new and ever changing competition in the market place.
This creates an additional advantage to State Exclusive Privilegesof Cartel; The Competitive advantage of time, collective financial and growthtendencies as well as youth.
The steady removal of Land and business away from individual proprietorship and ownership of property,
14.) Effects of State Born Monopoly and Cartels on Water and Land Ownership
FromOregon Law on Water Rights 1890, we see that there was a clear understandingof what a exclusive privilege was and that it must not be granted the samerights of the individual:
OREGON LAW:
BLACKS POMEROY
Theacknowledgment of the existence of such private collectives however showsthe growth of them by the 1880's and the beginning of the adaptation of civil law over common lawin regards to water ownership; The corruption seen to come by Patrick Henryquoted previously; and George Mason (a Founder who refused to sign the Constitution)100 years earlier.
Cities, instead of paying market price from a possessorof a water right, are empowered to "condemn" the individual's right altogetherand take it; ....extending a power over private property that is unprecedented.
Limited "Compensation Clause" Expanded and Arrogated into a "Condemnation Clause"
Using a very limited power that was delegated to the federal government for use only within the 10 miles square of Washington DC so to establish a place no greater than 1 mile for a exclusive District(of Columbia - Washington, DC), the federal government and states have corruptedthe meaning into an arrogation of power into their own boundaries; Usingthe "compensation clause" to act as a "condemnation clause", all governmentshave expanded past their limited powers. Against both Constitutional and Common Law pertaining to the protection and ownership of private property;
This has recently been attempted further corruption by Cities (a corporation) attempting to condemn one man's property so to give it to a corporation for development!!!
Inrelation, Cities have acquired the arrogated power to condemn water froman individual; Completely removing all future profits or benefit from theindividual and granting others it's benefits; The uses of the water is notsimply for drinking, cooking and bathing use, but also for yards, and recreation;
15.) ARBITRARY, UNENUMERATED, UNLIMITED, SET PERCENTAGE TAXES ARE THE CATALYST OF EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES AND CORRUPTION
Income tax and ALL Arbitrary, Unenumerated, Unlimited, Set Percentage taxation are the means of empowering Corruption; and The Catalyst for the Creation and Support of "Exclusive Privileges".
Beloware listed some of the many ways income tax empowers exclusive privileges,which corrupts constitutions and all free government.
The expansion of bureaucracy through undelegated, unenumerated indirect Taxation;
This is "set percentage" styled taxation taken first, by any means, then the federal government later decides what it "wants" to spend it on.
This is backwards to enumerated direct taxationwhich first is determined the need, then the consent of the people, and onlythen receiving from the people what they have consensually agreed on.
Graph: _______
16.) Effects of Exclusive Privileges on Corrupting Elections; and also Allowing Foreign Control of our Laws.
a.) States Granting Exclusive Privileges to political parties is the first corrupt practice, (and a act that dissolves government).
This has occurred by the legislative of governments (or executive), REQUIRING new political parties and Candidates to collect a huge number of signatures before being "RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE" and before even being allowed to be considered by anyone as a valid party or candidate;
This requirement limits the competition against the established parties and well financed candidates,who have found financial favor or that are either flattered or controlledby other exclusive privileged entities and interests having collective orotherwise financial powers. This EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE to existing powers changes and subverts true free elections by creating a financial bar prohibiting the common man and political groups from simply stepping forth to take positions in government using whatever means they can.
John Locke: #212. "Besides this overturning from without, governments are dissolved from within: ....
John Locke: #216. Thirdly, when, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the >>>>"ELECTORS" >>>"or WAYS" of election are "altered" without the "CONSENT" and >>>"CONTRARY to the >>>COMMON interest of the people", there also the legislative is altered. For if OTHERS THAN THOSE whom the society hath authorised thereunto do choose, or in ANOTHER "WAY" "THAN" what the society hath >>> "PRESCRIBED" (under the >>>"Origional" Compact), those chosen are "NOT" the legislative appointed by the people."
b.) Private Governments i.e. Corporations and Other Exclusive Privileged Entities Effect on Local Legislative Governments.
c.) "Collective" financial powers, Advertising powers, Foreign Interests and an "INROAD" to sway public opinion toward foreign interests.
d.) The use of Lobbyists by private "exclusive privileged Entities" to "stack" the legislative or sway the legislative, differs little to arranging electors to the "Executive's" or "Legislative's" favor.
This is visible by laws created outside the "limited delegated" powers.
e.) Executive Arbitrary Law and dissolution of government.
John Locke #222: "..........What I have said here concerning the "LEGISLATIVE" in general holds true also concerning the supreme executor,who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislativeand the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes aboutto set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the representatives and gain them to his purposes, when he openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes, to their choice, such whom he has, by solicitation, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his "designs", and employs them to bring in such who have promised beforehand what to vote and what to enact. >>>Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new model the "WAYS" of election, WHAT IS IT but to >>>CUT UP the government by the roots, and POISEN THE VERY FOUNTAIN of public security? For the PEOPLE having reserved to "themselves" the "choice" of their representatives as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end but that they might always be "freely" chosen, and so chosen, "freely act"and advise as the necessity of the commonwealth and the public good should,upon examination and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his OWN WILL, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as GREAT a BREACH of TRUST, and "as perfect" a declaration of a "DESIGN"...
(APP Note: See this in the Declaration of Independence and compare Locke 223-226: (" ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a "DESIGN" to reduce themunder absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw offsuch government and to provide new guards for their future security.)
"...to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a >>>"DESIGN", and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary to the trust that along with it in its ">>>>>>>FIRST" institution (APP: >>>>>>>i.e. Under the "Original Compact"), is easy to determine; and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this cannot any longer be trusted."
John Locke #223. To this, perhaps, it will be said that the people being ignorant and always discontented, to lay the foundation of government in the unsteady opinion and uncertain humour of the people, is to expose it to certain ruin; and NO government will be able long to subsist "if" the people may set up a new legislative "whenever they take offence" at the old one. (i.e. offense of the >>>"Original Compact" that government was FIRST created for peace and protection of the people).
|
| | | | |
|
Patrick Henry: "...The people within that place, and the strongholds, may be "excused from all the burdens imposed on the rest of the society", (relate to Obama's Health Care bill that excused congress and others) and may "enjoy exclusive emoluments", to the great injury of the rest of the people. But gentlemen say that the power will not he abused. They ought to "show that it is necessary". All their powers may be fully carried into execution, without this exclusive authority in the ten miles square. The sweeping clause will fully enable them to do what they please. What could the most extravagant and boundless imagination ask, but power to do every thing?I have reason to suspect ambitious grasps at power. The experience of theworld teaches me the jeopardy of giving enormous power. Strike this clauseout of the form of the government, and how will it stand? Congress will stillhave power, by the sweeping clause, to make laws within that {438} placeand the strongholds, independently of the local authority of the state. Iask you, if this clause be struck out, whether the sweeping clause will notenable them to protect themselves from insult. If you grant them these powers,you destroy "every degree of responsibility". They will fully screen themfrom justice, and preclude the possibility of punishing them. No instance can be given of such a wanton grasp of power as an exclusive legislation in "ALL CASES WHATEVER".
Mr.MADISON. "...The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if thesubsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity.
"IF" THAT "LATITUDE" of "CONSTRUCTION" which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause", there "WOULD" be room for those "HORRORS". But it gives no supplementary power. It "ONLY" enables them to execute the "DELEGATED POWERS". "IF" the "delegation" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "but" explanatory. For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves "AUTHORITY" (APP: i.e. "AUTHORITY" granted in the ORIGINAL COMPACT, "ONLY"; As the federal government CANNOT "ARROGATE" "ANY" NEW POWERS. See Ratifying Convention)
George Nicholas: "...The gentleman last up says that the power of legislation includes every thing. A general power of legislation does. But this is a SPECIAL power of legislation. Therefore, it does NOT contain that plenitude of power which he imagines. They CANNOT legislate in any case but those "particularly enumerated".
Wesee today that the federal government in many areas has redefined the delegatedpowers by "expounding" on the "general phrases" of the Constitution as theyhad in the Alien and Sedition Acts; The "LATITUDE" made to create a CONSTRUCTIONPatrick Henry had Warned us about. One that exceeds greatly the boundariesset by the very limited delegated powers.
17.) The Act of Legislating Financial Slavery and the Similarity to FOREIGN CONQUEST:
Legislating financial slavery though taxation, differs little from actual slavery to bring people and their properties under the condition of being WARDS OF THE STATE;
(Which we will cover in our next 2010 Year End News Letter "Wards of the State").
The act of the legislature stepping "outside of the delegated powers" which it was "FIRST" created under, is defined by Locke as little difference than FOREIGN CONQUEST and "act of war" on the people:
John Locke #218. "Why, in such a constitution as this, the dissolution of the governmentin these cases is to be imputed to the prince is evident, because he, havingthe force, treasure, and offices of the State to employ, and often persuadinghimself or being flattered by others, that, as supreme magistrate, he is incapable of control; he alone is in a condition to make great advances towards such changes under "PRETENCE" of lawful "authority", and has it in his hands to terrify or suppress opposers "as" factious, seditious, and enemies to the government;whereas no other part of the legislative, or people, is capable by themselvesto attempt any alteration of the legislative without open and visible rebellion,apt enough to be taken notice of, which, when it prevails, produces effects >>>"very little different" from "FOREIGN CONQUEST".
Besides,the prince, in such a form of government, having the power of dissolvingthe other parts of the legislative, and thereby rendering them private persons,they can never, in opposition to him, or without his concurrence, alter the legislative by a law, his consent being necessary to give any of their decrees that sanction. BUT YET so far as the OTHER parts of the "LEGISLATIVE" "ANY" "WAY" contribute to "ANY attempt" upon the government, and do either promote, OR >>>"NOT, what lies in them, >>>HINDER" such >>>"DESIGNS", "THEY" are GUILTY, and "PARTAKE" in this, which is certainly the >>>>"GREATEST CRIME" men can be guilty of one towards another."
See The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions that state it is the states "DUTY" to "ARREST THE EVIL"; NOT to "PARTAKE" of it.
John Locke #155. "It may be demanded here, what if the executive power, being possessed of the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the >>>>>>>"ORIGINAL" CONSTITUTION or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force upon the people, "without authority" (i.e. OUTSIDE THE "ORIGINAL" COMPACT / CONSTITUTION FIRST AGREED UPON WHICH CREATED THAT AUTHORITY), and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, >>>is a state of WAR with the PEOPLE, WHO have a RIGHT to reinstate their legislative (i.e. under the "ORIGINAL" "CONDITIONS" of the ORIGINAL COMPACT / CONSTITUTION) in the exercise of their (the people's) POWER. Forhaving erected a legislative with an intent they should exercise the powerof making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it,when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society,and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it BY FORCE.
In "ALL STATES and CONDITIONS" the "TRUE REMEDY" of "force" "WITHOUT AUTHORITY" (i.e. Granted ONLY THROUGH ORIGINAL COMPACTS THAT CREATED THE SOCIETY) IS TO "OPPOSE FORCE TO IT". Theuse of "force without authority" always puts him that uses it into a "stateof war" as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be "TREATED ACCORDINGLY".
John Locke #171.Secondly, political power is that power which every man having in the stateof Nature has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to thegovernors whom the society hath set over itself, with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their (the people's) good and the preservation of their (the people's) property. Now this power, which every man has in the state of Nature, and which he parts with to the society in all such cases where the society can secure him, is to use such means for the preserving of his own property as he thinks good and Nature allows him; and to punish the breach of the law of Naturein others so as (according to the best of his reason) may most conduce tothe preservation of himself and the rest of mankind; so that the end andmeasure of this power, when in every man's hands, in the state of Nature,being the preservation of all of his society -- that is, all mankind in general -- it can have no other end or measure, when in the hands of the magistrate, but to preserve the members of that society in their lives, liberties, and possessions, and so CANNOT be an absolute, arbitrary power over their lives and fortunes, which are as much as possible to be preserved; but a power to make laws, and annex such penalties to them as may tend to the preservation of the whole, by cutting off those parts, and those ONLY, which are so corrupt that they threaten the sound and healthy, without which no severity is lawful. And this power has its "ORIGINAL" "ONLY" from >>>>>"COMPACT" and agreement and the mutual "consent" of those who make up the community."
John Locke #226. Thirdly: I answer, that this power in the people of providing for their safety anew by a new legislative when their legislators have acted CONTRARY to their "trust" by invading their "PROPERTY", is the best fence against rebellion, and the probable means to hinder it. For rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but AUTHORITY, which is founded "ONLY" in the constitutions and laws of the government: THOSE, whoever they be, who, by force, break through, and, by force, justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels.For when men, by entering into society and civil government, have excludedforce, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unityamongst themselves, those who set up force again in opposition to the laws,do rebellare -- that is, bring back again the state of war, and are properlyrebels, which they who are in power, by the pretence they have to authority,the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the flattery of thoseabout them being likeliest to do, the proper way to prevent the evil is toshow them the danger and injustice of it who are under the greatest temptationto run into it.
John Locke #227. In both the forementioned cases, when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the "END for which they were constituted", "those who are" guilty are guilty of rebellion. For if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust (established in the "ORIGINAL" COMPACT / CONSTITUTION (s)), he thereby takes away the umpirage which every one had consented to for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They who remove or change the legislative take away this decisive power, which nobody can have but by the appointment and consent of the people, and so destroying the authority which the people did, and nobody else can, set up, and introducing a power which the people hath NOT "AUTHORIZED", actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority; and thus by removing the legislative established by the society, in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their own will, they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the state of war.
>>>>>"And" "IF THOSE", who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the >>>"LEGISLATORS THEMSELVES", as has been shown, can be "NO LESS" esteemed so, when they (the "LEGISLATORS") who were set up for the protection and preservation of the "people, their liberties and properties" shall by force invade and "endeavour to take them away"; and so they (the "LEGISLATORS") putting themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the "GREATEST AGGRAVATION", rebellantes, rebels."
18.) Elements of Financial Slavery by Taxation:
The construction of a Socialist Tax System
Taxescreated to keep citizens from achieving, by taxing their earnings to thehighest possible limit they can pay. Need for limiting taxes to that whicheveryone can pay.
Corruption by creating a "set percentage" tax or"FLAT" tax system on income, sales or other; Which guarantees an automaticincrease to government with a increase in the private sector.
Corruption of combining multiple taxes into one.
as opposed to:
The Constitutional means of Consensual, Direct, enumerated and separated taxation; Which is the best system.
19.) When a Contract is Considered Slavery.
Thomas Jefferson: 7 year limit on debt:
When percentage of interest is made to impoverish or take the whole or greater part of the person's income.
Whenthe contract exceeds the ability to reasonably allow the laborer to pay thedebt off, live and earn enough to relocate or keeps him from relocating toa new job;
When there is no Bankruptcy protections;
Brazilian "Farm Camp" and American "Company Stores" examples;
20.) Contracts that establish FINANCIAL SLAVERY are an "Exclusive Privilege"; i.e. USURY
A.) Debt and Credit Slavery and Corruption;
a.) The Convenience "COMPANY STORE" as had been seen in the early US history; (see lyrics to Henry Ford - "Sixteen Tons": "I owe my soul to the "Company Store"")
b.) or remote Convenience "FARM LABOR STORES";
Such as in South America - Brazil etc. Creating "Deceptive Convenience" that financially ENSLAVES or financially INDENTURES people to others;
B.) UNDELEGATED UNENUMERATED ARBITRARY UNCONSENSUAL TAXATION;
The Practice by government of creating government Contracts far beyond the reasonable means of the community to afford or pay,
Therefor impoverishing the community and financially enslaving them to unending taxation and Debt against their properties.
C.) Credit Cards are a CONTRACT combination of:
a.) Usury in interest,
b.) Practice of "Deceptive Convenience" to cultivate "FINANCIAL INDENTURE"of citizens to banking institutions..
D.) Teaching children against borrowing should be a regular weekly curriculum in schools. Repetition being the best teacher.
21.) Crime and Contracts
Drawing a "VISIBLE" line between criminal acts and legitimate lawful contracts is an essential and necessary establishment within societal law.
USURY
Allowance or establishment of exorbitant interest
Allowance or establishment of unlimited time to repay.
CONFIDENCE ARTISTRY
The marketing of ease of debt.
The downplay of the effort it will take to repay.
The downplay of the time it will take to repay.
CARTEL
Exclusive Privileges Collective Cartels
Business Cartels
Association Cartel
MONOPOLY
Monopoly of Business
Monopoly of Land
Monopoly of Labor
22.) Capitalism VS Liberalism Deception
The the Argument Itself is the MARKETING of FRAUD and DECEPTION by EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGED ENTITIES.
Capitalism! Capitalism! Capitalism! Shouts one side for "so called" Free Trade.
Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Shouts the other for more government programs to create them.
And so the Capitalism and Liberalism argument on radio and television goes on.
What you do not hear is defined TRUE "constitutionalism";
That is "except" in the most corrupted form and perverted definition of it from both sides.
Corporate "i.e. Fiscal" Republicans spout Nationalism and Corporate "so called" free trade which by the actual definition is Exclusive Privileged Trade, not free trade;
Democratsspouting jobs through "government bureaucracies" as if freedom was meantto force those outside of government to pay those within it;
In reality, it is an argument of Government Socialism and Privatized Socialism, through both using state born "Exclusive Privileges".
What you do not hear by these two groups, BOTH being State Born "Exclusive Privileges" riding upon the backs of; OR which are Privileged in a way to "EXCLUDE" "True Free Trade, Free Competition, Individual Business and Independent Labor":
a.) Is the differentiating of Exclusive Privileged Capitalism - Trade of "State Born Collectives"; and that of "True Free Trade" of Single Individuals.
b.) Is the difference between Collective Ownership and Title to Property and that of Actual Individual Ownership and Title to Property.
c.) Nor do you hear the differentiating of Union supported "Exclusive Privileged" undelegated bureaucracies "dictating MAXIMUM wages" extracted from forced "unenumerated taxation"; and that of Consensual Taxation for Reasonable wages determined by LOCAL communities in which they serve.
(See Rightsof the Colonists: "Governors have no right to seek what they please... the"community in which they serve" must be the assessors of their pay")
-----------------------
23.) "Exclusive Privileges" Granted of Arms and Protection
1.)Where there is the privilege of those that can afford to HIRE armed protection,those that cannot afford to hire protection are prohibited from equally armingthemselves to protect themselves.
2.) Police can use any means toprotect others and themselves or to subdue others, but again the individualis limited to a narrow description of self preservation, leaving himselfunsure of his rights..
3.) Legislators can call forth the entire forceof a standing army, yet local powers are castigated and limited so as toshow now power of any consequence against them should it be necessary.
George Mason, 6-16-1788: "Who are the militia? They are ALL people."
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists 1772: The right of self preservation is the "first law of nature".
24.) Free Trade and Borders
(see magna carta - merchants can come and go freely - 7 year citizens)
A person is his own property for use as free trade.
Foreign and Domestic Citizens "person labor" or a person being his own property, as Free Trade;
25.) Nationalism VS True Patriotism
Inconsistency of those wishing to secure borders with themselves,
Common law principles of freedom and the Declaration of Independence.
26.) Monopoly and Cartel Laws
Monopolies and Cartels have long been established as not free trade but a criminal establishment.
Itcan hardly be considered free trade when a entity buys up everything to removecompetition or conspires with others to exclude free competition which isthe basis of free trade;
And or set prices so that there is a convenienceor practicality limitation to buy elsewhere. Which is again the example inhistory of the "Company Store".
A.) Monopoly of Human Labor.
Often you will hear of monopolies with regard to products; However there are other ways of monopolizing the market.
B.) Prevention of Land Monopolies,
C.) Localized Monopoly Laws to Free up Government Land to Individuals and Private Title;
D.) Limiting Collectivism
E.) Addressing Principles of Natural Law - See Locke on "so long as there is enough"
F.) Future Exploration;
27.) "Exclusive Privileges" Found in Exploration and Development of Oil, Gas, and Minerals and Refinement.
Manipulation of laws and Legislation, such as the CARA Bill, Get out and Go Act and Omnibus Bill.
28.) Zoning and Other Restrictions on Private Lands for Drilling Creating "Exclusive Privileges".
29.) People Enslaving Themselves Through Granting "Exclusive Privileges"
Ironically, those screaming for the allowance of such Exclusive Privileges in trade, fail to understand, it is those very "Exclusive Privileges" that systematically take powers away from actual individuals and move it into fewer and fewer hands; who then begin to control ALL THINGS.
Why else would our Founders say and warn us of this:
Thomas Jefferson: " If the American people EVER allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations (APP: Exclusive Privileges) that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Patrick Henry: " We are told, we are afraid to trust ourselves; that our own representativesCongress will not exercise their powers oppressively; that we shall not enslave ourselves; that the militia cannot enslave themselves. Who has enslaved France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny?
They have been "enslaved" by the hands of their "OWN PEOPLE".
"IF" it will be so in America, it will be only as it has been EVERY WHERE ELSE."
Dangers Which are:
a.) International foreign ownership of local properties through holdership of stocks;
An allowance that removes land ownership from a country's "own citizenry"; and / or subjects that country's citizen's land and people, to "foreign interests".
Foreign Homage:
Also it is "A Design" for government to allow Exclusive privileges (i.e. corporations, unions, tax supported special interests, undelegated (under the original compact) self perpetuated government bureaucracies) to have members or stock holders outside the local or national legislatives who owe homage to another nation;
Further, it allows foreign control, through stocks, of American soil and businesses; These subvert the powers of the local legislative and people, causing dependency of those it employs, to foreign interests; who owe homage to a foreign legislature;
or to a "Cause" - in the case of "special interests", such as "international environmentalism" or Oil industries;
This is against the philosophy of freedom;
See John Locke Regarding "Toleration", where citizens owing homage to another entity (power) gives way to granting that entity soldiers against the local legislative (magistrate) to be stationed within the borders of a Magistrates own Country;
Locke:
Thereby placing the properties of a country, state or local community under the INTERESTS of a "FOREIGN" power.
This is opposed to the local legislative which is "supposed to be" supreme(limited to powers granted by the people), to be fully supported by the people;and in-turn for the legislative to be fully subservient in defense of thepeople's local wishes, interests and safety;
John Locke Regarding "Civil Government": States that governments giving the people and their property into the hands of a foreign power (or impoverish them) is an act that:
1.) defines "how a king unkings himself;
2.) or a legislative removes itself from power.
*** ReadJohn Locke >>> #211. - Regarding the "Dissolution of Government":
Relate this also to our federal government in ANY ADHERANCE to United Nations policies, or Private Federal Reserve Bank. Further, it creates a independent private collective, not unlike a independent government; >>> Apart from the existing legislative; Creating dependency of those it employs who owe their ALLIANCE to a president of a corporation; >>> Not to the defense of essential natural rights; or to the support of the "locally elected legislative", where it should be.
---------
Locke presents an interesting and important note: That because it is done "without authority", as authority is REMOVED at the TIME of the act which he describes removes it.; Not the "least right" is lost from the people themselves to those it was granted to, by any unauthorized or undelegated act. Thereby those, foreign or otherwise, who entertain any unauthorized grant or loan through or by a corrupt or disingenuous executive or legislative, gain NOTHING; and can loose EVERYTHING by their business, investment, flattery or entertaining unauthorizedacts, which is ANY ACT made by our government, that impoverishes or undulyindebts the people; or conveys any US property into or under the power ofa foreign power. The States and the people remain faultless and debtless; as "not the least right" or property is transferred by the unauthorized act.
---------------------
John Locke on Civil Government:
#238: "The other case is, when a "king" (Applies also to Legislative See Locke #201) makes himself the >>>"DEPENDENT of ANOTHER" (APP: Including Debt as to China), and subjects his kingdom, which his ancestors left him, and the people put free into his hands, to the DOMINION of ANOTHER. (APP: If the people are in debt to China, we are DEPENDENT of, under DOMINION of & OUTSIDE Constitutional Authorization) For however, perhaps, it may not be his intention to prejudice the people, "YET" because he has hereby lost the principal part of regal dignity -- viz., to be next and immediately under God, supreme in his kingdom; and also because he betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved, into the power and dominion of a "foreign nation". (APP:The recent acts of our Federal Legislative indebting us to China or to OTHERSis not "simply finance", it conveys an assumption of power over us if we cannot repay; or if our dollar devalues to a point impossible to repay) By this, as it were, alienation of his kingdom, he himself LOSES the power he had in it before, (APP: IMPORTANT) >>> "without" transferring "ANY" the >>> "LEAST RIGHT" to "those" on whom he would have "bestowed it"; and so by this act sets the people "free", and leaves them at their "own" disposal. ..."
# 202: "...For EXCEEDING the BOUNDS of "AUTHORITY" is no more a right in a great than a petty officer, no more justifiable in a king than a constable. But so much the "worse" in him as that he has more trust put in him, is supposed, from the advantage of education and counsellors, to have better knowledge and less reason to do it, having already a greater share than the rest of his brethren."
Locke illustrates the ways government REMOVES ITSELF from AUTHORITY:
John Locke: Chapter 19: Of the Dissolution of Government
# 212: "...First. When the legislative is "altered"..."
# 213: "...misuse the power they have..."
# 214: "...when such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will of the society declared by the legislative, then the legislative is "changed."
# 215: "...when the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is "altered."
# 216: "...arbitrary power of the prince, the electors or "ways of election" are altered "without the consent" and contrary to the common interest of "the people", there also the legislative is "altered".
# 217: "...the delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince or by the legislative, is certainly a "change" of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government. For the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free, independent society to be governed by its own laws, this is "LOST" WHENEVER they are given up into the power of "ANOTHER".
Not only has our federal Legislature placed itself at risk, but the state's legislatures who take part are also at risk, and should take special care not to continue to be brought into the dealings of a corrupt federal legislature, by mandates, undelegated taxation, UN resolutions, or any type of political, private, foreign interest or national special interest vehicle.
>>>>>>> IT IS BOTH a STATE and >>>>>>> COUNTY responsibility that these do not enter or reside within their borders. Counties have no less the duty and responsibility to act and VOID any such intrusions,
These include county commissions, county JUDICIAL being the first guard; and people of each county:
George Nicholas, Constitutional debates: "He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in "ALL" well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers." "If they exceed these powers, the >>> "JUDICIARY" "WILL" declare it " VOID", or else >>>"the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to "DECLARE it VOID"
Therefore:
Collective Bureaucracies, it is found, can be private, as well as in government; That Private collectives such as national and international corporations, granted "that EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF CARTEL" by the states, can, and often do when large enough, take on the structure "equal" to the establishment of "governments", without borders or allegiance to any territory, legislative or community commonwealth; Yet having the ability to manipulate them through dependency, bribery, power and favors; Such through "exclusive privileges", often protected through "limited liabilities", for their actions, granted by the state itself, can be used and adapted for the abuse of political powers of anyone in the position to wield them, and therefor dangerous to any and all civil societies.
|
|
b.) Establishing local dependency on foreign people and companies and those effects upon local legislatives.
"Foreign",international and distant "legislative" interests and companies create Dependencyand subjection on foreign interests or distant legislatures.
John Locke on "Dissolution of Government"
John Locke 238. "The other case is, when a king makes himself the "dependent of another", and subjects his kingdom, which his ancestors left him, and the people put free into his hands, to the dominion of another.For however, perhaps, it may not be his intention to prejudice the people,yet because he has hereby lost the principal part of regal dignity -- viz.,to be next and immediately under God, supreme in his kingdom; and also becausehe betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved, into the power and dominion of a foreign nation.
By this, as it were, alienation of his kingdom, he himself "loses the power" he had in it before, >>> without transferring any the least right to those on whom he would have bestowed it;
c.) State Sponsored Private Cartels
Statelaws establishing that corporations once created cannot dissolve themselvesdue to public ownership, creates a "collective entity" or "fictional individual",that cannot be easily removed or die.; Corporations are actually a groupof individuals and a state born "Exclusive Privilege" of Cartel;
Corporations, Unions etc. are "private collectives" i.e. "private socialisms".
They are forms of secret organization or privatized government as opposed to all others out side of it.
d.) Federal Lands limited by "Original Compact" (i.e. Constitution) to 10 miles square;
Though expanding a land mass beyond that region with the intention of ownership by state citizens settling the land(outside their delegated powers - read below) which has since been developedinto states; The federal government has kept land intended for citizen settlementand then allowed "exclusive Entities" on that federal land, to be given "exclusive privileges"for resources or control of management on those lands to national and internationalexclusive privileged groups and Entities (undelegated federal bureaucracies,corporate oil and exploration contracts, national and international environmentalgroup sway - not local residences most directly effected).
Mr. PENDLETON: ...."Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant "exclusive privileges" to citizens residing "within >>>THAT place" (i.e. Washington, DC)...
(APP Note: Today's corruption does not limit this to that areaand extends far beyond - Corporations, Unions, Tax supported Special Interests,Undelegated - Under the Original Compact - state and federal bureaucraciesas well as Zoning grants & restrictions are ALL examples of "Exclusive Privileges" granted by the state);
...the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have >>>NO operation without the LIMITS of >>>"THAT" district. Were Congress to make a law granting them an "exclusive privilege" of trading to the East Indies, it could have >>>NO effect the moment it would go without >>>>>>>"THAT" "PLACE"; for their (the federal government's) >>>>>"exclusive power" is >>>>>"CONFINED" to >>>>>>>>>>>"THAT" district. Were they to pass such a law, it would be >>>NUGATORY; and "EVERY" member of the community "AT LARGE" could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district. This "exclusive" power is "LIMITED" to >>>>>>>"THAT" PLACE "SOLELY", for their >>>OWN preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary. "
This being the Delegated Intent;The federal government by both exceeding this boundary and then managingland intended to be transferred to states and citizens and then grantingprivileges in it, are clearly acting outside the delegated powers; landsshould be dispersed as intended to citizens; or where held for a public,given to local publics of counties or smaller for local community ownershipand control of those communities most closely effected by that management.
e.) National and international manipulation through undelegated powers and treaties;
Thesenowhere delegated to the federal government or intended to apply federalor international regulations upon or within the interior states;
Seethe Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as to the limitation on the federalgovernment from CREATING any new definition of federal crimes other thanthose so originally enumerated.
These establish dangerous undelegatedpowers over local communities, and restrict independent explorationor ownership. This is further compounded by state legislatures acting without authority who allow undelegated (under the State's "Original Compact") federal mandated regulations, to spill over into state powers over private property.
Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause (VI) does"NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY" "PART" of theConstitution, (N)or to make >>>"ANY" "REGULATION" that may affectthe interests of the citizens of the Union >>>"AT LARGE". But it gives them power over the "local" police of the "PLACE",so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstandingthe violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case >>>within THAT district.What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to thegeneral powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall be. What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate "THERE", in order to preserve {440} serve the police of THE PLACE and their ownpersonal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and ofcourse to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall BE this is the "fair construction".
Canwe suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will makeit an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of theworld? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains?I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters."
(If this last line was not such a sad statement, it would be funny.)
By the "FACT" that both state and federal representatives have "impeded the operation of the constitution" by "exceeding", or having "Allowed to be Exceeded" the limited powers granted it (from state mandates and other undelegated powers) and catering to "Exclusive Privileges" both here and abroad, "The Federal Government and State Government Legislatives and Representatives have "BECOME" "THEMSELVES" the "profligate characters" he speaks of.
A Real Danger, when national and international corporations, unions and other collectives have a exclusive privilege of ACCESS to our state and federal legislatures; either by financial favor or other;
This corrupts the sytem by allowing opinions by a "favored privileged few" to guide the hands of government and military might OUTSIDE the local community's and local society's will.
f.) The Act of the Condemnation or Taking of Private Property into Federal Ownership
By the hindrance, harassment, intimidation and uncertainty of citizens not knowing to have full ownership of their property;
Property which is their natural RIGHT to possess and be secure in absolute ownership in a society.
By Removal of State Land into federal ownership (as presently being done through so called "environmental" causes such as "National Monuments") for which only large exclusive privileged intities and bureaucracies will have control over management and access to natural resources.
By"laws" which FAVOR large Exclusive Privileged Corporate Collectives havingthe "only" financial ability to compete in high priced government contractsor regulatory hoops;
When the land should be not only locally owned, managed and controlled, "Not federal"; Free from national and international dictates, and equally available and affordable to all citizens who possess a shovel, drill, pick or saw.
Here are the Principles:
Absolute Rights of the Colonists, Samuel Adams: "...Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person OR by his "REPRESENTATIVE".--
These are some of the first "PRINCIPLES" of natural law & Justice, and the "GREAT BARRIERS" of "ALL FREE STATES", and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcileable to these PRINCIPLES, and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists."
John Locke 137. Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of Nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet.
Itcannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, togive any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their "persons andestates", and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a WORSE condition than the "State of Nature", wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by "supposing" they have given up themselves to the "absolute arbitrary power" and will of a "legislator", they have disarmed themselves, and armed HIM to make a prey of THEM when he pleases;
"HE" being in a much WORSE condition that is exposed to the arbitrary power of one man who has the "COMMAND" of a hundred thousand THAN "HE" that is exposed to the arbitrary power of a hundred thousand single men, nobody being secure, that his will who has such a command is better than that of other men, though his force be a hundred thousand times stronger. And, therefore, whatever form the commonwealth is under, the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by "extemporary dictates" and "undetermined resolutions" (APP: a good description of government given the right to condemn land they have already patented to the people, temporary ownership of land from government or "zoning laws" and "conditional uses" placed upon private property), for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the "State of Nature" if they shall have armedone or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force them to obeyat pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts,or unrestrained, and till that moment, unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions. For all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that boththe people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limitsof the law, and the rulers, too, kept within their due bounds, and not be tempted by the power they have in their hands to employ it to purposes, and by such measures as they would not have known, and own not willingly.
John Locke 138. Thirdly, the supreme power (The Legislative or Representitive) CANNOT take from ANY man ANY part of his property without his OWN "CONSENT". (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists, 1772) For the preservation of property being the end of government, and "THAT FOR WHICH" men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should "have property", without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; >>> "too gross an absurdity for any man to own".
Men, therefore, in society "having property", they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or ANY PART of them, from them without their own consent; without this they have no property at all. For I have truly no property in that "which another can "BY RIGHT" TAKE from me when he pleases "against my consent". Hence it is a "MISTAKE TO THINK" that the supreme OR legislative power of "ANY" commonwealth (Federal state or local) can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take "ANY" "PART" of them at pleasure...."
John Locke 139.But government, into whosesoever hands it is put, being as I have beforeshown, entrusted with this condition, and for this end, that men might have and secure their properties, the prince or senate, however it may have power to make laws for the regulating of property between the subjects one amongst another, yet can never have a power to take to themselves the whole, or any part of the subjects' property, without their own consent; for this would be in effect to leave them no property at all.
And to let us see that even absolute power, where it is necessary, is NOT ARBITRARY by being absolute, but is still "LIMITED" by "THAT" REASON and "CONFINED" to "THOSE" ENDS (APP i.e. and established in the ORIGINAL COMPACT) which required it in SOME cases to be absolute, we need look no farther than the common practice of martial discipline.For the preservation of the army, and in it of the whole commonwealth, requiresan absolute obedience to the command of every superior officer, and it isjustly death to disobey or dispute the most dangerous or unreasonable ofthem; but yet we see that neither the sergeant that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach where he is almost sure to perish, can command that soldier to give him one penny of his money; nor the general that can condemn him to death for deserting his post, or not obeying the most desperate orders, cannot yet with all his absolute power of life and death dispose of "one farthing" of that soldier's estate, or seize one jot of his goods; whom yet he can command anything, and hang for the least disobedience. Because such a blind obedience is necessary to THAT end for which the commander has his power -- viz., the preservation of the rest, "BUT THE DISPOSING OF HIS GOODS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT".
John Locke 194. Their persons are free by a native right, and their properties, be they more or less, are their own, and at their own dispose, and not at his; or else it is no property.Supposing the conqueror gives to one man a thousand acres, to him and hisheirs for ever; to another he lets a thousand acres, for his life, underthe rent of L50 or L500 per annum. Has not the one of these a right to histhousand acres for ever, and the other during his life, paying the said rent?And hath not the tenant for life a property in all that he gets over andabove his rent, by his labour and industry, during the said term, supposingit be double the rent? Can any one say, the king, or conqueror, afterhis grant, may, by his power of conqueror, take away all, or part of theland, from the heirs of one, or from the other during his life, he paying the rent? Or, can he take away from either the goods or money they have got upon the said land at his pleasure? If he can, then all free and voluntary contracts cease, and are void in the world; thereneeds nothing but power enough to dissolve them at any time, and all thegrants and promises of men in power are but mockery and collusion.
Forcan there be "anything more ridiculous" than to say, "I give you and yoursthis FOR EVER", and that in the "surest and most solemn way of conveyancecan be devised" (APP: i.e. "Land Patents"), and yet it is to be understood that "I" (APP: i.e.THE GOVERNMENT) have right, if I please, to take it away from you again to-morrow?"
APP Note: Relate this to US Land Patents absolute granting of properties and the Attempt of the Federal, State or Local Governments to condemn such land or water by common law attached to the land now or later,or the state to condemn such property after giving consent to adjudicatesuch transfer by authority of the United States by which it was a party,or to create new regulations upon it after granting it with none; To encircle that land in national monument and control the inroads and water, orto regulate limits to anything with regard to it, or to arbitrarily tax itinto debt and thereby rendering the land not owned but rented or a WARD OF,when no taxes were in established at the receiving of it, or to tax it withoutconsent, or tax without consent for things built upon that property to improveits value, or to tax things raised upon it to derive sustenance and earningsfrom his labors, or derive any such without consent from those he wills itto.
And you will find the neither the federal government, nor the state government has no power to do so, nor has any power of such been delegated to it by the ORIGINAL COMPACT.
For once property is possessed of a person, it is any governments duty to protect it, and NOT to devise a design to wrest it away after all rights had been released; As this clearly established by Locke and common law rights we inherently possess, that the protection of property is the purpose of government and the reason that the person enters into society.
(again) Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give "Congress" power to impede the operation of "ANY" "PART" of the Constitution, (N)or to MAKE >>>"ANY" "REGULATION" that "may" affect the interests of the citizens of the >>>Union >>>"AT LARGE"."
James Madison:".....He says that one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution,was, that a standing army was quartered upon us. This was not the whole complaint. We complained because it was done without the "LOCAL Authority" of this country without the CONSENT of the peopleof America. As to the exclusion of standing armies in the bill of rightsof the states, we shall find that though, in one or two of them, there issomething like a prohibition, yet, in most of them, it is only provided thatno armies shall be kept without the legislative authority; that is, without the CONSENT of the "community itself".
Mr. GRAYSON:"Look at the other end of the Ohio, towards South Carolina, extending tothe Mississippi. See what these, in process of time, may amount to. They may grant "exclusive privileges" to any particular "part" of which they have the possession.
But it may be observed that "those extensive countries" will be "formed into" "independent states", and that THEIR CONSENT WILL BE NECESSARY. To this I answer, that they may "STILL" grant such "Privileges" as, in thatcountry, are already granted to Congress by the states. The grants of Virginia,South Carolina, and other states, will be subservient to Congress in thisrespect. Of course, it results from the whole, that requiring the consent of the states will be "NO GUARD" against this "ABUSE of POWER""
We can see now that Grayston was correct, both that exclusive privileges are an "abuse of power"; and that "requiring consent" has been smoothed over with federal (state allowed) mandates used as bribery to get money back from undelegated unenumerated taxes that should have never left the state;
This money only to be channeled away from the people again by states through contracts with established "state and federal born" Exclusive Privileges - corporations, unions, special interests and undelegated (under the Original Compact) federal bureaucracies.
Creating a continual form of state, federal and private "Exclusive Privileged" Entities "Shear and Fleecing of the citizens".
Mr. NICHOLAS insisted that as the state, within which the ten miles square might be, could prescribe the terms on which Congress should hold it, no danger could arise, as no state would CONSENT to injure itself: there was the same {435} security with respect to the places purchased for the erection of "forts", "magazines", &c.; and as to the territory of the United States, the power of Congress only extended to make needful rules and regulations concerning "it" (APP: when NOT YET developed into a state), without prejudicing the claim of any particular state (APP: then existing states), >>>the right of "territory" >>>NOT being given up (APP: to the federal government); that the grant of those lands to the United States was for the general benefit of all the states, and >not to be perverted to their (the state's) prejudice >; that, consequently, whether that country were formed into new states or not (APP: which all land has now been), the danger apprehended could not take place; that the seat of (the federal) government was to be still a PART of the STATE, and, as to "general regulations", was to be "CONSIDERED as SUCH".
This assumption as to states "not injuring themselves" has been proven incorrect; As the state's own representatives have injured their states through catering to state and federal Exclusive Privileges, federal debt caused by the federal legislative branches and presidents when they step outside the limited delegated powers, and when they sell out to lobbyists for favors to "Exclusive privileged entities".
Mr. Nicholas's understanding of state land general regulations are the state's responsibility "IS" correct; as states where to establish regulations of land within their borders once they became a state. Protections against exclusive privileges has fallen far short.
The Constitutional Exception is for federal forts in the states; However, it was still necessary for the state's consent to be given in order for the federal government to erect or maintain, the federal government was not to expand it's powers.
The civil war was begun by the federal government not abiding the Constitution and leaving Fort Sumter when the state removed it's consent.
The Federal government, but for forts in undeveloped territories, was limited to size in land mass and legislative power:
Mr. MADISON.Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration wasone of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessaryto say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me askwhether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers. I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "small district", which >>>"CANNOT EXCEED" >>>"TEN" miles square, and >>>"MAY NOT BE MORE" than >>>"ONE" mile,will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be any knowledge inmy mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant "exclusive advantages", in a >>>"VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED" district, to the prejudice of the community at large.
This hinged upon this critical feature:
James Madison:The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequentclause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what "new terrors" can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that "latitude" of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause" (VI - Supremacy Clause), there "would" be room for those horrors. But it gives NO supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the "DELEGATED powers". "If" the "DELEGATION" of their powers be "safe" (APP: FOLLOWED PRECISLY), no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "BUT" explanatory.
And here it is clear that because the federal government has stepped outside delegated powers, the "terrors and horrors" have arisen and continue to grow. The warnings of Exclusive Privileges and undelegated federal powers by Patrick Henry was this:
Patrick Henry: "...The officers of Congress may come upon you now, fortified with all the "terrors" of "paramount" "FEDERAL authority". Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows. They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and {449} "measure", every thing you eat, drink, and wear. >>>They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds."
Thomas Jefferson: (Quotes)If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of theirmoney, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations (APP: Exclusive Privileges) that will grow up around them (around the banks which are also corporations), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Thomas Jefferson: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. >>>"ALREADY" they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be "taken" from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." .......
"The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction...I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standingarmies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity...is but "SWINDLING" futurity on a large scale." .......
"Iconsider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'allpowers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibitedby it to the states, are preserved to the states or to the people.' ... To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
>>>The "incorporation" of a bank, and the powers assumed by THIS BILL (chartering the first Bank of the United States), have >>>>>>>"NOT", BEEN "DELEGATED" to the United States by the Constitution."
30.) DANGERS OF "COLLECTIVE TITLE" IN PROPERTY - I.E. COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM
31.) When Government Grants Themselves Exclusive Privileges of Protection
Harboringsuch a defense in readiness of acts against the people; or to use to protectthemselves, while they hand the citizens into the hands of a foreign legislature(power) i.e. such as United Nations Sanctions.
32.) Regulations VS Law; Removing Regulations Does Not Remove the Ability to Employ "Just" Laws;
It simply removes the power of the government and others to grant privileges.
Aset "just" Law treats all individuals equal; Where regulations and departmentpolicies often allow interpretation and actual privileges.
33.) Government Cannot Grant Exclusive Privileges To Itself; NOR Can It Grant Exclusive Privileges to Others.
James Madison: "If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the "LAST THING" that would "enter into the mind of ANY man" to grant "EXCLUSIVE ADVANTAGES", in a very "circumscribed district", to the "prejudice of the community at large". ......." The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend ANY danger, they may "REFUSE it ALTOGETHER"."
George Mason - Virginia Declaration of Rights #4: "That "NO MAN", OR "SET OF MEN", are entitled to exclusive or "separate emoluments" or "privileges" from the "community", but in consideration of "public" services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary."
John Locke - Civil Government 1690: #142"...These are the "bounds" which the "trust" that is put in them (government) by the society and the law of God and Nature have set to the legislative power of every commonwealth, in ALL forms of government. First: They are to govern by promulgated established laws, "NOT TO BE VARIED in particular cases, but to have ONE RULE for rich and poor, for the favourite at Court, and the countryman at plough. (APP Note: See these exact words in the Absolute Rights of the Colonists - By Samuel Adams 1772) Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 defining the Constitution: Mr. GRAYSON: "Among the various "laws and customs" which pervaded Europe, there were "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" and IMMUNITIES enjoyed in many places. He thought that this ought to be "GUARDED AGAINST"; for should such "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" be granted to merchants residing within the "TEN MILES SQUARE" (Washington, DC), it would be HIGHLY injurious to the inhabitants of OTHER PLACES."
Mr. GRAYSON: Mr. Chairman, one answer which has been given (by the federalists) is, the improbability of the evil that it will never be attempted, and that it is "ALMOST" impossible. This will not satisfy us, when we consider the great attachments men have to a great and "magnificent capital" (i.e. " Washington DC" and "National Pride"). It would be the interest of the citizens of that district to aggrandize themselves by EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS in their power, to the "great injury" of the other states.
34.) Rights Removed and Exchanged for Exclusive Privileges Granted by the State in WATER and LAND
A.) Here is an excerpt from Blacks Pomeroy on Water Rightsthat illustrates the courts understanding of the "EXISTENCE" of the EXCLUSIVEPRIVILEGE i.e CORPORATIONS the AND the ADVANTAGE that EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGESIN FACT HAVE in WATER:
Blacks Pomeroy:
1893. Loss of rights through "nonuse" "Platte Water Co. v. Northern Colorado Irr Co. 12 Colo. 525, 21 Pac. Rep. 711: "A "CORPORATION", which under its charter, has the exclusive right to all the waters of a stream, and the exclusive "privileges" of using, controlling, the same for "various purpose", CANNOT allow such right to remain in abeyance for a long series of years, and therefor assert the same to the exclusion of THOSE, who have in the meantime, acquired rights to the use of such stream, by actual appropriation and use, in pursuance of the general laws of the state."
B.)Here is a second excerpt from Blacks Pomeroy on Water Rights that illustrates the corruption "of thought" by even these authors in applying the UNCONSTITUTIONALmeans of both State "IMMINENT DOMAIN" and "COLLECTIVISM" powers of "CITY CORPORATIONS" (i.e. A State Born EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE) to "TAKE" WaterRights without consent from rightful Water Right Holders;
Instead of simply purchasing "use"or ownership from WILLING and CONSENTING Water right holders. From a "generally"correct book of water rights, this shows the failing understanding of Constitutionallaws and limitations as such a incorrect mindset drawn from the civil war'sestablishment of the "Pretense of Authority"by the federal government, easing itself into our independent state and localsocieties and outside the limited delegated powers, shortly after the endof the civil war:
Blacks Pomeroy:
C.) Here shows that they recognize the changes taken in courts with "no precedence" and "against Common Law":
Blacks Pomeroy:
The problem however, arises from allowing ANY "Exclusive Privilege" to exist "AT ALL";
Which if prohibited, there would be no reason or excuse to either grant or withhold ANY privileges, as they simply would not exist.
D.)As WARNED by Patrick Henry, the States begin their attack and removal ofCommon Law and begin to replace Common Law with Civil Law and beginthe "Business of HUMAN Legislation".
Patrick Henry 6-16-1788 Ratifying Convention. (a warning): "...There is, therefore, more occasion for the supplementary check of a bill of rights "now" than then. Congress, from their "general, powers", "may" fully go into business of >>>>>>>"HUMAN legislation"...." "....In "this" (HUMAN) "business of legislation", your members of Congress will "LOOSE the RESTRICTION" of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your Declaration of Rights. What has distinguished our ancestors? That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment.
But Congress "may" introduce >>>the practice of the "CIVIL law", in PREFERENCE to that of the "COMMON law". They "MAY" {448} introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany of "torturing", to extort a confession of the crime. They will SAY that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with "still more" relentless severity. >>>>>>>>>We are then "LOST and UNDONE". And can any man think it troublesome, when we can, by a small interference, prevent our rights from being lost? If you will, like the Virginian government, give them "knowledge of the extent" of the rights retained by the people, and the powers of themselves, they will, if they be honest men, thank you for it. Will they not wish to go on sure grounds? But if you leave them otherwise, they will not know how to proceed; and, being in a state of uncertainty, they (the governments) will >>>"ASSUME" rather than give up powers by "implication". A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? That our rights are reserved. Why not say so? Is it because it will consume too much paper? Gentlemen's reasoning against a "bill of rights" does not satisfy me.Without saying which has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rightsis a favorite thing with the Virginians and the people of the other stateslikewise. It may be their prejudice, but the government ought to suit theirgeniuses; otherwise, its operation will be unhappy. A bill of rights, even if its necessity be doubtful, will >>>>>>>>>>>"exclude the possibility" of dispute; and, with great submission, I think the BEST way is to >>>>>>>>>>>"have NO DISPUTE"..."
E.) The Change in 1909Oregon water law as similar to other states removing the protections derivedfrom Common Law, such as where Water rights were actual "RIGHTS" transferredthrough Right of "TITLE"; was the CHANGE into the practice of HUMAN Legislationwhich the "STATE took OWNERSHIP" of ALL the WATER.
The state thereby changed a "RIGHT of TITLE" into a "STATE PRIVILEGE", under the excuseof making "BENEFICIAL USE" the MEASURE and EXTENT of water rights i.e. nowactually not rights of title, but state granted EXCLUSIVE "PRIVILEGES" thatcan be taken away BY THE DISCRETION of the "STATE".
35.) Solutions:
Becausethe states were foolish enough to allow such privileges as Corporations,Unions, tax supported Special interests and undelegated federal or mandatedstate bureaucracies into the state or become established in their laws, solutionsthat protect property of persons involved in them, requires a systematicprocess of removal or altering to revert to the complete exclusion and prohibitingthe existence of them in the state; as well as protections against outsideor foreign forces:
a.) Process of Dissolving of Corporations and disperses properties or money to those who had been stock holders.
b.) Conversion of Corporations operating in the state into Private Companies
c.)Conversion of Corporations into private non corporate independently singleperson owned Franchises (Contracts cannot exceed 7 years)
d.) Conversion of Corporation products into product Licenses for benefit of previous stockholders?
e.) Reestablishment of Usury Laws, 5% No exceptions limit - all services offered or attached must be included.
f.) Better defining of loans and risk investment
g.) Limitations to borrowing over 5% total annual income
h.)Limitations to granting loans over 5% total annual income both bank and person(the public should not have to bail out either bank or citizen)
i.) No exceptions. Make a law easy to understand and without granting ANY privileges.
j.)Limiting Bank Credit card promotions, usage and distribution of them andestablish law against "confidence artistry" and other criminal financialschemes.
k.) Changing Tax supported Nonprofits into actual Charities, removing all tax support.
l.)Restricting corporation, unions, Tax supported special interests and Taxsupported nonprofits from existing within any state.
m.) Removal of ZoningLaws and establishing a simple building code and pollution (sound and other)law; Which is unintrusive, and that applies and can easily be understoodand practiced by everyone so to be practiced without being presented to any government for decision.
n.)Stop Exclusive Privileges "in government" by freezing hiring and systematicallyclosing undelegated (under the original compact) federal or Federalmandated state bureaucracies; Remove all government Unions and place allsalaries on local county averages subject further by local citizen vote;
o.) Stop financing private and tax supported exclusive privileges.
p.)Remove all unenumerated taxation that creates surplus federal money or createsand encourages tax right-off benefits that funnel money to "exclusive privleges"or special interests.
q.) Remove all government involvement in the construction or granting of exclusive privileges
r.)After adjudication respecting common law rights, water rights from laterapplications must be transferred to owner in the for of title attached tothe land it was developed and not subject to beneficial use, but as an objectof ownership of a property.
s.) Corporate exclusive privileges removed or else subject to beneficial use and nonuse loss in 1 year (see Blacks Pomeroy).
t.) Wills supersede trusts and remove state or court interference.
u.)People, companies or Trusts CANNOT grant or will land, water or resourcestitles to state or federal government, trusts or special interests . Onlyto actual individuals. Land and water must be kept available for individualcitizens to own and develop.
v.) Water rights and privileges after beingadjudicated would revert to rights of TITLE to "actual individuals" only;However, exclusive privileged collectives and and governments would not be allowed to own waterand must rent the water from actual title holders and must limit any contractto any water to 4 years; Thereby allowing the owner of the water to renegotiate,exercise the RIGHT of ownership in title as well as allow competitive bidsto enter from others to insure free trade value of water.
------------
John Locke 195. I will not dispute "now" whether princes are exempt from the laws of their country, but this I am sure, they owe subjection to the laws of God and Nature.
Nobody, no power can exempt them from the obligations of that eternal law. Those are so great and so strong in the case of promises, that Omnipotency itself can be tied by them.
Grants, promises, and oaths are bonds that hold the Almighty, whatever some flatterers say to princes of the world, who, all together, with all their people joined to them, are, in comparison of the great God, but as a drop of the bucket, or a dust on the balance -- inconsiderable, nothing!
|
| |
