|
THE AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY
2008 Elections Statement
American Patriot Party Candidate and Candidate Endorsement Form. This election presents an opportunity to advance Constitutional Education and participation of Constitution principled Candidates.
The American Patriot Party of Oregon suggests:
1.) Supporting candidates at all levels that support strict adherence to the Constitution and Original Intents of the Founding Fathers.
2.) This Party suggests a Vote of No Confidence in the present Republican and Democratic parties by:
a.) NOT voting for either McCain or Obama, who both intend to ignore the Constitution and continue the status quo of big, wasteful and invasive government.
3.) Ron Paul of the Republican Party has officially cast his endorsement to Chuck Baldwin of the Constitutional Party for President of the United States..
The American Patriot Party of Oregon suggests Voting for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party
With the endorsements by Ron Paul, we now have another choice.
GET THE WORD OUT! Place news paper ads; 50.oo will usually buy a block of 5 ads in free papers such as nickel papers under automotive and other much read categories.
Get out the vote and while you do, get educated by reading the Founders letters.
By voting for Constitutional minded candidates at all levels of representative positions, this will begin to build a voter and candidate base for Constitutional ideals, which have so long been ignored by our governments and representatives;
Greater votes cast toward Constitutionally minded candidates will embolden more citizens with like principles to run for office, make changes, and encourage others.
Review and Join, Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty;
4.) Look for candidates that openly intend to:
a.) Remove the income tax and IRS
b.) Transfer all federal lands and offices to ownership and control of counties thereby removing the federal leverage and use of mandates placed upon the states.
With Regard to the Republican Campaign: The John McCain presidential candidacy: Though McCain, or most likely the Republican party, has made a better, or at least a more clever than most, choice for a Vice President; it should be remembered that you will not be voting for a Sarah Palin presidency, but for a John McCain presidency, a man who adores Al Gore's mentality (See McCain Portland, Oregon speech on environment and global warming & USA Today article) on the environmentalist movement and global warming fears that seeks to control every American citizen, and place this nation into the controls of a international society that ignores both national and more importantly local county and state powers which are the backbone of freedom and this free country.
McCain shows no sign of change from using fear to found institutions as was warned by the founders; George Bush has used it on the people as a reason to invade Iraq; and John McCain is intending to use fear to remain there; And further plans to control by fear the states through continued mandated environmental regulations, unconstitutional federal laws and expansive federal departments such as the patriot act and homeland security:
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776:
"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."
The idea of not allowing any danger to ever exist was contemplated long ago by John Locke, the first founder of freedom for which our free government was derived;
John Locke: 232. " Whosoever uses force without right -- as every one does in society who does it without law -- puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are canceled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor. This is so evident that Barclay himself -- that great assertor of the power and sacredness of kings -- is forced to confess that it is lawful for the people, in some cases, to resist their king,..."
234." ....Thus far that great advocate of monarchical power allows of resistance."
235. "It is true, he has annexed two limitations to it, >>> to no purpose:<<<
First. He says it must be with reverence.
Secondly. It must be without retribution or punishment; and the reason he gives is, "because an inferior cannot punish a superior."
First. How to resist force without striking again, or how to strike with reverence, will need some skill to make intelligible. He that shall oppose an assault only with a shield to receive the blows, or in any more respectful posture, without a sword in his hand to abate the confidence and force of the assailant, will quickly be at an end of his resistance, and will find such a defence serve only to draw on himself the worse usage. This is as ridiculous a way of resisting as Juvenal thought it of fighting: Ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum. And the success of the combat will be unavoidably the same he there describes it: Libertas pauperis haec est; Pulsatus rogat, et pugnis concisus, adorat, Ut liceat paucis cum dentibus inde reverti.
This will always be the event of such an imaginary resistance, where men may not strike again.
He, therefore, who may resist must be allowed to strike.
And then let our author (God), or anybody else, join a knock on the head or a cut on the face with as much reverence and respect as he thinks fit.
He that can reconcile blows and reverence may, for aught I know, deserve for his pains a civil, respectful cudgelling wherever he can meet with it."
Compare this in opposition to President Bush's attempt to squelch any and all reprisal to his own use of force on anyone that will not comply, and the continuation proclaimed by McCain; Peace by absolute subjugation. Or what is actually a quiet form of slavery; proclaiming that we have not been since attacked because anyone in that foreign country that does not accept us, we kill by overwhelming force or imprison... And to strike fear if there are those here in the states that may disagree, invade everyone's privacy, and imprison for aid and comfort to the enemy ... (who are enemies supposedly for doing the very same thing to their people) under the so called patriot act and "department" of homeland security which target all Americans;
*On the border of our own country and under the guise sold to us of fencing the "so called" enemy out; We find we are actually and in fact neatly fencing ourselves in; Antiquated fixed defensive positions against actual enemies have long since been proven a outdated useless invention in modern warfare, except to imprison or channel the helpless and unarmed; which is more accurate a purpose;
Why worry about illegal immigrants, when the federal government steals a million fold in mismanagement, taxing you for it; and strips you of the rights and liberties to protect yourself, placing restrictions on private property and errecting fences barring you from freely coming and going from this country (see Magna Carta 1215 #41 - Free to come and go); and (see Rights of the Colonists 1772 - "Well entitled" to all Rights of England);
By simply improving state laws that limit benefits to only U.S. Citizens; requiring Mexican drivers licenses, insurance, including insurance for pregnacy prior to entering the country; and a simple entry tax to cover state and county (not federal) border patrols; most adverse immigrant costs would be elliminated.
Further, it is federal mandates, state and county zoning and self inflicted regulations that keeps you from building what you want and doing business on your own land the way you want, which is the greater robber of jobs; Lift all zoning laws and see how unemployment drops. We also need to stop worrying about how to get enough money to pay the government whatever it wants, and force it to only that which is absolutely necessary, and then only by our consent.
To see a comparison of the presidents actions, see the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson;
It is not the first time the Executive has attempted to become both legislative and judicial, to carry out undelegated unauthorized executive powers; erasing the safeguards of the original compact that have been placed in the judicial and legislative. A man who by his position proclaims he speaks for the country, when he in reality he speaks only for his own desires and uses his position and command without granted authority and against the laws that establish his position to lead the entire country to financial ruin and destruction. Placing us now 9 trillion in debt.
Madison, Jefferson and Locke amply describe to the wielder of such arrogance, the proper solutions: To void and rebuke it.
Locke also establishes limits of the government when they attempt to enforce undelegated and unauthorized powers first established in the Original Compact by the people:
-----
Locke 202. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street may be opposed as a thief and a robber if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant and such a legal authority as will empower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed.
Compare to Bush and our present legislative, house and senate, that refuses to declare war, enact laws against its own people in the patriot act and establishes arms restrictions on it's own citizens; Phone tapping, recording and warrantless search and seizures;
Compare to state legislatures, state judicial and counties that allow such to take place within their local borders; imposing restrictions of the same manner. All Clearly against the original compact by which they drew their permission of authority, conditionally given by the people they serve.
-----
235 continued: "Secondly. As to his second -- "An inferior cannot punish a superior" -- that is true, generally speaking, whilst he is his superior. But to resist force with force, being the state of war that levels the parties, "cancels" all former relation of reverence, respect, and superiority; and then the odds that remains is -- that he who opposes the "unjust" aggressor has this superiority over him, that he has a right, when he prevails, to punish the offender, both for the breach of the peace and all the evils that followed upon it.
Barclay, whom John Locke quotes for his lesson in paragraph 237, 238, 239 & see 201 describes the ways by which either king, executive or legislature remove themselves from power: (something that makes the king cease to be a king or a Legislature to be removed from supreme - returns to the state of a private man, and the people become free and superior); and see 201 below with regard to the legislative when they too, likened to the king, breech this trust.
a.) Locke 237: "if he endeavour to overturn the government -- that is, if he have a purpose and design to ruin the kingdom and commonwealth",
b.) 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. ...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. 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 <<<; and so by this act sets the people free, and leaves them at their own disposal. One example of this is to be found in the Scotch annals."
It is here that the United States federal government by transferring any dominion or control either by the United Nations; or into any national or international bank or corporation; Indebted and dependent to other countries; printing unbacked money ruining the dollar and impoverishing the states and country as a whole; or subjecting the states to international environmental laws, has exceeded their powers; ignored their duty and have removed themselves from authority;
The States, transferring or subjecting their powers to the federal government that were not delegated to it under the limited original compact of the Constitution, allowing their citizens to come under federal controls or mandates, having granted dominion to another and in complying, have exceeded their powers and ignored their duty;
The local counties allowing their citizens to come under controls or mandates by state and federal governments that have granted powers of dominion to another and in complying have exceeded their powers and ignored their duty.
c.) Locke 239: In these cases Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to allow that a king may be resisted, and ceases to be a king. That is in short -- not to multiply cases -- in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king, and may be resisted: for wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have >no authority<."
"And these two cases that he instances differ little from those above mentioned, to be destructive to governments, only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows, and that is
>>> the breach of trust in "not preserving the form of government" <<< >>>"agreed on",<<<
and in not intending the end of government itself, which is the public good and preservation of property"
d.) See also Locke 201. >>> "It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies."<<<
"Other forms of government are liable to it as well as that; for wherever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to >>>other ends<<<, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better."
The Sarah Palin - Vice Presidency: Though this may be a favorable and tactical move for the Republican party's bid for a McCain presidency, the status quo for big government promoted by the Republican Party remains unchanged.
The governor's stands to open up federal land to drilling, pales in the restrictions the state of Alaska places on private individuals to drill oil on their own land;
Further, and to the greater crime and tyranny, is the state's assumption and arbitrary claim of power over the earth and mineral deposits below that private property.
Zoning and regulations and property taxes on private lands continue to be the biggest self inflicted wound to true free enterprise by the states themselves; So long as restrictions to private property via state and federal mandated environmental laws remain, oil remains a "exclusively privileged" trade (all state born privileges of Corporations, Unions and Special interests are state born exclusive privileges), and not a truly free trade; A practice and criminal act that pervades and limits the true free trade of exploration; and extraction of minerals and oil by average citizens on their own private property.
The United States has over 75% private land; It takes less than a 1/4 of an acre to drill for oil. Why are there not oil wells in the farms and back yards of Alaskans? ...and in those of other states?
Though there are several issues and excuses to that by states, including the Alaska state laying claim to subsurface and then leasing it to others. It is certainly a taking of property for the benefit of state and corporations; not the individual;
The purchase of land (unless an expressly defined reservation within the title) or land by patent, unless expressly defined in title, extends to the core of the earth, not just the surface; including any mineral or gas within it; It is not for the taking of, or leasing by the state to any one;
Governments are formed to regulate between owners of private property, not to lay claim to the foundations of the earth beneath it or the means of it, then empower its bureaucracy by first creating exclusive privileged entities such as corporations, then leasing someone's land to them so they can extract the valuable minerals out from under the private property owner, which are rightfully his.
On the issue of federal land, it would seem more advantageous to free enterprise, competition and trade to begin selling federal lands to ACTUAL individuals; Small 40 acre tracts sold under titles that can only be sold and resold to actual individuals; and not combinable to others under similar purchases or outside properties; nor sold into any collective or state born exclusive privileged organization, such as corporations, unions, special interests or government bureaucracy; Insuring ownership of private property to many individuals and prohibiting collective land grabs by collectives.
(Note corporations are legally but falsely declared a single "individual" even if comprised of thousands of individuals).
There is seen no such serious actions taken by the state of Alaska, or protections or encouragement by any state governor for any or all private property owners to explore and mine in their back yards, farms, or coastal village properties;
On the contrary, we see quite the opposite in the government increasing regulations and imposing yet more and more limitations on private property;
This is as with most state government bureaucracies who refuse to close the door on the federal government and its manipulative and mandated practices upon the states;
Thereby the status quo of Governor Palin adds little in the way of advancing true free trade or any vote of any confidence; Only a ongoing practice of placating a federal government for federal funds taken back, that have previously been extorted from individuals by federal income taxes, through the manipulation of federal mandates; or to increase taxes on oil for greater bureaucracy and public programs; This instead of stopping the exclusive state born privileges of corporations, she milks them for taxes and prohibits actual individuals from ever acquiring oil on their own land.
The founders presented that you retained what was not expressly given up; Also that you could insure you reserved something by expressly presenting in either compact or title that which you did not give up;
Patrick Henry in turn presented a warning that if something is not written, governments would attempt to assume powers they did not have; This caution is what resulted in the Bill of Rights;
Patrick Henry's statement did not in any way change the fact that all rights are retained through "exclusion";
This limits any granted relinquishment of any rights to those expressly written in the Original Compact;
However he presented a safeguard in the Bill of Rights to a often practiced government ploy for powers which attempted and established "assumed powers" over their people;
This is established by the Founders James Madison, George Nicholas and the others in the debates.
Some examples establishing that rights are reseved by "exclusion" are found in the Constitutional Debates:
James Madison: "The Constitution does not say that a standing army shall be called out to execute the laws. Is not this a more proper way?"
George Nicholas: "...But why were the articles of the bill of rights read? Let him show us that those rights are given up by the Constitution. Let him prove them to be violated. He tells us that the most worthy characters of the country differ as to the necessity of a bill of rights. It is a simple and plain proposition. It is agreed upon by all that the people have all power. If they part with any of it, is it necessary to declare that they retain the rest? Liken it to any similar case. If I have one thousand acres of land, and I grant five hundred acres of it, must I declare that I retain the other five hundred? Do I grant the whole thousand acres, when I grant five hundred, unless I declare that the five hundred I do not give belong to me still? It is so in this case. After granting some powers, the rest must "remain with the people".
The Constitution clearly establishes that all rights not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved by the states and the people.
The state nor federal government was never granted any earth or mineral beneath or within the land transferred to the people; in fact through the letters patent the federal government released all rights and claims (aside in some cases in the west a path for ditches reserved) to the individual; and the states by that patent proceeding adjudicated it which released all state ownership to it; or if coming into statehood after, must had recognized it.
For any time the state to proclaim ownership to that property, mineral or other directly beneath the ground granted, is not only a simple taking of property, its value and the means; It is an act of war and aggression on it's people whose property its purpose is to protect; and against freedom.
The sanctity of property is established throughout all of the historical documents of freedom; consent is required by the individual for any part of private property; Note that compensation for public use is not the same as compensation for public's permanent acquirement which is prohibited by all laws of freedom; the "use" is temporary and solely for the purpose of the protection of that owners private property so that he may retain it once more when the use for protection of that property or others property is finished.
There is no such thing as eminent domain in a free country; Imminent domain is a assumed undelegated power which is unconstitutional; completely against the intent of the founders and against all definitions of freedom or common law.
See John Locke:
Chapter 11: Of the Extent of the Legislative Power
134. THE great end of men's entering into society being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society, the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power, as the first and fundamental natural law which is to govern even the legislative. Itself is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it. Nor can any edict of anybody else, in what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law which has not its sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and appointed; for without this the law could not have that which is absolutely necessary to its being a law, the consent of the society, over whom nobody can have a power to make laws9 but by their own consent and by authority received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts. Nor can any oaths to any foreign power whatsoever, or any domestic subordinate power, discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative, acting pursuant to their trust, nor oblige him to any obedience contrary to the laws so enacted or farther than they do allow, it being ridiculous to imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society which is not the supreme.
135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth, yet, first, it is not, nor can possibly be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person or assembly which is legislator, it can be no more than those persons had in a state of Nature before they entered into society, and gave it up to the community. For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. 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 the law 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 the society.10 It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects; the obligations of the law of Nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have, by human laws, known penalties annexed to them to enforce their observation. Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for, other men's actions must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of Nature -- i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of Nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it.
136. Secondly, the legislative or supreme authority cannot assume to itself a power to rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense justice and decide the rights of the subject by promulgated standing laws, 11 (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) and known authorized judges. For the law of Nature being unwritten, and so nowhere to be found but in the minds of men, they who, through passion or interest, shall miscite or misapply it, cannot so easily be convinced of their mistake where there is no established judge; and so it serves not as it aught, to determine the rights and fence the properties of those that live under it, especially where every one is judge, interpreter, and executioner of it too, and that in his own case; and he that has right on his side, having ordinarily but his own single strength, hath not force enough to defend himself from injuries or punish delinquents. To avoid these inconveniencies which disorder men's properties in the state of Nature, men unite into societies that they may have the united strength of the whole society to secure and defend their properties, and may have standing rules to bound it by which every one may know what is his. To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.
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. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, 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, for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of Nature if they shall have armed one or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force them to obey at 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 both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of 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.
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. 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 can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take "any part" of them at pleasure. This is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists wholly or in part in assemblies which are variable, whose members upon the dissolution of the assembly are subjects under the common laws of their country, equally with the rest. But in governments where the legislative is in one lasting assembly, always in being, or in one man as in absolute monarchies, there is danger still, that they will think themselves to have a distinct interest from the rest of the community, and so will be apt to increase their own riches and power by taking what they think fit from the people. For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from any private man what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he "thinks" good.
139. But government, into whosesoever hands it is put, being as I have before shown, 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 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, requires an absolute obedience to the command of every superior officer, and it is justly death to disobey or dispute the most dangerous or unreasonable of them; 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.
140. It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent -- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such "consent of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of property", and "subverts the end of government". For what property have I in that which another may by "right" take when he pleases to himself?
141. Fourthly. The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others."
(APP Note: The United Nations Has No Powers because the United States having limited delegated powers cannot arrogate new powers, nor transfer powers not existing in the original Compact, or contrary to the peoples rights, of the United States, to others;
The States cannot transfer powers not delegated to the federal government to the Federal government by mandates or other; See Constitutional debate)
"The people alone can appoint the form of the commonwealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the people have said, "We will submit, and be governed by laws made by such men, and in such forms," nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can they be bound by any laws but such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen and authorized to make laws for them."
142. These are the "bounds" which the "trust" that is put in them 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 Rights of the Colonists 1772)
Secondly: These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately but the good of the people.
Thirdly: They must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people given by themselves or their deputies. (note deputies are not simply representatives acting on their own determinations, but legal representatives appointed and directed by the actual willing consent of the individual(s) in each and every separate case - enumerated and clearly visible)
And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves.
Fourthly: Legislative neither must "nor can" transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere but where the people have."
The proclaiming of a "general aim" by any candidate indicating he or she is for more free enterprise and "more" local control when local control should be absolute; or proclaiming NRA membership which organization hardly presses for arms ownership that relates to the definition of the division of powers which was intended by the founders; Or other so called "conservative" views, is not enough.
Playing the "federal game" is the greatest detriment to our society, and a detriment to any potential candidate; Whether played well, or not so well, in the past;
Unless there is a active and visible motion to remove the income tax, the tax which continues to fund exclusive privileged organizations and expansive government bureaucracies; And Unless there is a active and visible motion to, by way of continual Bills at the states level to transfer all federal lands (that create a avenue for federal mandates over the states) within each state, to the complete ownership, management and control of the individual county legislators and commissioners to do as the local communities of each county sees fit; and or sold outright to actual local individuals for homesteading;
And to provide what they themselves feel they can afford by consensual funds from the local citizenry for services, i.e. local citizen control as to what services they wish or feel they can afford by annual vote, or who they will hire at wages the local community dictates;
Then there is simply no serious will by any such candidate, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, to relinquish any undelegated and invasive powers over the people by federal, state or local county governments.
Such local power being a necessary feature in any truly free government, which historically has been to be directly under the power and consent of local communities and commonwealths; and not under the arbitrary force and manipulation of Distant legislatures which were opposed by the laws and intents established by the authors of freedom, Which See.
With Regard to the Democratic Campaign: Barack Obama presidential candidacy
Barack Obama has shown to be no different in his intentions Which See; In fact much worse in his willingness to hand our nation and our laws into being manipulated by foreign powers and international groups; for the purpose of controlling our states and local counties through foreign and international mandates;
Proclaiming increased taxes, increased bureaucracy, increased foreign military intervention, increased federal invasiveness, increased environmental extremism and manipulation of state and local laws, and invasiveness of private property.
Joe Biden vice presidential candidacy
Joe Biden presents a long list of embellishment of undelegated federal programs and powers which are now plaguing states, local communities and individual freedoms;
Biden serves on the following committees in the 110th U.S. Congress:[21]
* Committee on Foreign Relations (chairman)
o As chairman of the full committee Biden is an ex officio member of each subcommittee.
* Committee on the Judiciary
- Subcommittee on Antitrust Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
- Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs (chairman)
- Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law
- Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees
- Subcommittee on Technology Terrorism and Homeland Security
* Caucus on International Narcotics Control (co-chairman)
Biden received a 91% voting record from the National Education Association (NEA) showing a pro-teacher union voting record.[78] Biden opposes drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and supports governmental funding to find new energy sources.[79] Biden believes action must be taken on global warming. He co-sponsored the "Sense of the Senate" resolution calling on the United States to be a part of the United Nations climate negotiations and the "Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act", the most stringent climate bill in the United States Senate.[80] Biden cites high health care and energy costs as two major threats to the prosperity of American businesses, and believes that addressing these issues (with more federal bureacracy) will improve American economic competitiveness. Biden was given a 100% approval rating from AFL-CIO indicating a heavily pro-union voting record.
This establishes Biden as a large part of the growing federal bureaucracy problem, and invasiveness to state and local powers and personal freedoms in our country;
Conclusion:
McCain and Obama have both proclaimed they would work with the international community as to what we should or shouldn't do to develop goals and impose laws in our country; For the environment or other causes, why should any representative ask other nations or international entities to look elswhere than from those they are suppose to represent; then to create from other's opinion undelegated federal laws, mandates and powers upon our local communities and our people?
Especially when there is no delegated power in the Original Compact to grant them any authority to do so;
The intent of the Founders in the Constitutional Debates, clearly are in opposition to both candidates views.
The Constitutional law is intended to keep them from not taking even one step outside the delegated powers.
EDMOND PENDLETON: "Mr. Chairman, this clause (sweeping clause) does not give Congress power to impede the operation of any part of the Constitution, 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 secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the 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 the general 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 own personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the fair construction. Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? 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." ....
"...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, >>>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".
Both McCain and Obama have clearly presented their intentions carrying out every definition of tyranny;
Foreign Wars without declaration; policing outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC and the expansive creation of "departments" (see and do a word search on the page) as an excuse to use that policing power; Continuance of invading rights of individuals; Continuing all the things that implicate a tyrannical socialist government.
That the Republican and Democratic parties and the candidates they have promoted, have clearly presented those intentions.
Both candidates promote socialism and by their actions and speeches are socialists.
To vote for either, you will be voting in socialists and for socialism.
Which is why we strongly advise not to vote for either.
Determiner
If you feel this party is being unfair in our determination;
Then let either candidate, state themselves they intend, and if elected, remove, the holds placed by the federal government over the states:
1.) Return all federal lands that are within the states to the local county communities free of encumbrances so that the states shall be truly independent states as intended by the Founders; And the local communities to be in full control of the local land within their county boundaries; to determine for themselves what services they will or will not provide and who they will hire.
Declaration of Independence, 10th Grievance defining Tyranny in government:
" He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
2.) Remove the Income tax and IRS.
3.) Remove the United States from the United Nations.
4.) Remove the Unconstitutional Federal Reserve.
5.) Remove the Patriot Act; Which is really in fact the "Communist Act"; and all federal restrictions to arms.
6.) Remove the Homeland Security and allow individuals, counties and states the unleashed freedom to defend themselves.
7.) Remove all federal mandates upon the states, and counties.
8.) Remove all arrogated federal powers beyond the limited delegated powers;
9.) Remove all undelegated programs, departments and offices not defined in the Original Constitutional Compact.
10.) Remove any and all federal mandates or adherence to any and all international mandates on states, counties and individuals with regard to Zoning or environment.
11.) Remove all federal or state born exclusive privileges such as Corporations, Unions and Special interests.
See Constitutional debates and Virginia Declaration of Rights #4 and APP on Socialism.
For what good is it to be a great hero for freedom, Or pronounce great change; When, after elected to public office, they turn to enslave and continue to impoverish the country; ignoring the laws and principles they have been authorized to uphold.
If the elected do not speak of and remove these clear corruptions, our party's determination remains correct;
Both to them, and to all those who follow or allow these to remain;
This includes state governors, state legislators and the State judicial that do not use their state powers and county powers to correct the trend; and to continue to be bribed; and to fail to NULLIFY or VOID as clearly defined as their RIGHT and DUTY by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison Authors of the Declaration of independence, Constitution and word for word in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions;
This country will remain, until these things come to pass, under the holds of a tyrannical government by the clear and historical definition of the word, as clearly presented by the Founders.
Suggested Solution:
To counter any refusal to remove the listed items above, what the country needs in all states, is strong County Commissions and judicial, with joint county support of nearby counties, also strong educated state legislatives and judicial to refuse, nullify and void state impositions forwarded by federal mandates and to do the same with state legislative impositions on the counties;
Clearly indicated by the founders as a defined right and duty of both, and all citizens to do.
Constitutional Debates:
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".
By voting the right people in that protect freedom; and not ever voting for the wrong people in who lay designs against freedom, our freedoms will be insured.
Vote to remove appointed positions and replace them with elected positions that are answerable to the people by vote and subject to common law and constitutional law.
Vote for those Candidates that promote the Constitution as the founders defined and intended it.
Become educated by reading the Founders letters, historical documents and Constitutional debates so that you will know Freedom's Foundations and where to cast your vote.
|
