War?

So what do we have? There is no Rule of Law, the government usurps everything we know to be right. " The constitution is not an instrument of the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument of the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry.
So when the government holds disdain for the limited power that WE the PEOPLE put on it, what is left to us?
Have we forgotten, that the federal government was given limited power by us? That it would not even exist without our permission? That we are the CREATORS of government, and all power is retained by the people?
These people have trampled on their oath of office, and have proven that they are traitors to we the People.They swore to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, and they have become the domestic enemies of the Constitution. And they are BLATANT about it.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  Declaration of Independence.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. James Madison

The executive has no right, in ANY case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war. James Madison

Death of the Republic

Please listen to the youtube link below of Rep. Ron Paul.
Thomas Jefferson would have been proud to serve with this man. The President now has complete war powers, not that he wasn't using them already, and they have been for years, but congress, ever negligent of their oath of office, has ceded all their power to the President of the united states. If you don't understand how grave this is, you understand nothing, and are worse than the ones propagating this vile against us.
Your best understanding of America is American Idol? Stay tuned , the idols you will soon worship have not yet reared their ugly head.

And it was those dirty liberals who did it to us again?

No, it was the Republican controlled house of representatives.  Republicans. AGAIN.

Are you starting to understand yet? Is any of this sinking in? Do previous posts here make more sense to you now?

Would you like to defend the great conservative party? Maybe you still think they are doing this to defend you?
Fools.
I hear the Symphony of Destruction playing in the streets, we like rats follow the tune of the Pied Piper.


Too late.

Too bad.

Ron Paul, trumpeting the end of the Republic

The Patriot's vote

The most powerful weapon we have as Americans is something that the normal American sadly dreads and despises and tries his hardest to get out of, and that is the power of the Juror.
You, as the Juror, can overturn Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court of the United States.You are Sovereign, holding Power over the most powerful nation in the world. Your decision is final, you are immune to any and all reprisal. You are the Fourth and most important Branch of government, and are the most important and powerful Branch to the Liberty and Freedom of the People of these united States.  
You are the Juror.
The courts don't want you to know this, and do their very best to keep this Power hidden from you, because they fear you, the Juror. They talk over you, they speak down to you, they act overly important, they give themselves titles of nobility, calling themselves "the Honorable" and "Esquires."
They tell you that you must obey all directives given to you by the court, you are not wise enough to act outside of the directives given to you.
But they LIE.
You, the Juror, are under no obligation to listen to the direction of the court. The court is your servant, your employees. You pay their salary; they are UNDER you; they can no more make you follow their will than you can decide which direction the wind blows. They must follow statutes and law. You, the Juror, are the final Judge of that statute and law, and can disregard them at your will.They have dared to bring charge against a Free man or woman, and wish to take away that freedom, and you are the final say of whether the state has the Right to do so.
You are the line in the sand, the protector of your countryman's Liberty. Your decision could be the doom or the Life of your Posterity's Liberty.

We have supposed "Constitutional Scholars" these days that have no regard for this Duty of the Juror, and leaders of both political parties scoff at the idea, and pretend it doesn't exist.

But they are dead wrong.

The very basis and Foundational protector of our Liberty is the right to trial by our Peers. This isn't a trial to decide the facts given to us by a paid government informant (a law officer) or prosecuted by a paid government lawyer (the prosecutor) with the law decided by a paid government judge deciding whether his employer's law is fit or not. This is a Trail in which the accused calls on his fellow countryman to decide whether or not he has committed any harm to another citizen's Life, Liberty or Property.

In the days of the Magna Charta, an official of the crown was not even allowed to bring accusation in the court against the citizen; he was, of course, BIASED.
There had to be 2 or more witnesses against the citizen. Today, the court weighs the testimony of the government's officer heavily over the accused citizen. If the officer claims it, then it happened.

Let's look at the history of the Right and Power of the Juror. It may seem long, but its importance was heavy on our Founders' hearts, and they held it with the highest of the citizen's Duty and Right.
The first instance we find of "Jury nullification" had to do with one of our most Sacred Rights, the Freedom of Worship.   
In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, who was a Protestant and more than likely was involved with some of the things the Court accused him of. The jury was imprisoned for acquitting him.
In 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury acquitted John Lisburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against Cromwell.
The most famous case, copied here from Wikipedia:

By the late 17th century, the court's ability to punish juries was removed in Bushell's Case^[16] involving a juror on the case against William Penn. Penn and William Mead had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace, but four jurors, led by Edward Bushell refused to find them guilty. Instead of dismissing the jury, the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury this time unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force them to bring in a guilty verdict and when they failed to do so the judge ended the trial. As punishment the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court. Four jurors refused to pay the fine and after several months, Edward Bushell sought a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the Court of Common Pleas, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd" and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with.





At the sedition trial of journalist John Peter Zenger in 1735, Andrew Hamilton recounted the story of the Penn trial to a New York jury and admonished them that whatever the law and facts, they had the right to acquit Zenger if they held that to be the just result. They followed his advice in an outcome that laid the foundation for American press freedom.
America’s Founding Fathers made their case to juries arguing for nullification. John Adams, when defending John Hancock in 1771, insisted that the juror has not merely the “right” but actually the “duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” and its understanding of the law. Conscience should serve as a safety valve, he argued, against unjust laws, or against just laws, unjustly applied.

This was eventually dealt a blow in a case before the Supreme Court in Sparf v US .The judge no longer had the duty to inform the jury of its Right to judge the Law. More recent cases have the court telling us, ( and it's no surprise, the court wants the supreme power in cases of law and is trying to subvert the Citizens' power) that the defendant in a case cannot even bring up the fact that the Jury has the right to nullify the law.
This is nothing more than Tyranny.
 Let's see what our Founders felt about it; I could care less what the tyrants today say, in their pseudo intellectualism. They are fools compared to the men who established this Nation.
 
In a rare jury trial in the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Jay, speaking for a unanimous Court, instructed the jury:

The facts comprehended in the case are agreed; the only point that remains, is to settle what is the law of the land arising from those facts; and on that point, it is proper, that the opinion of the court should be given. It is fortunate, on the present, as it must be on every occasion, to find the opinion of the court unanimous: we entertain no diversity of sentiment; and we have experienced no difficulty in uniting in the charge, which it is my province to deliver.
It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision.

— [Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)]

It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. John Adams

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.Thomas Jefferson

No freeman shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed (harmed), nor will we (the king) proceed against him, nor send any one against him, by force or arms, unless according to (that is, in execution of) the sentence of his peers, and (or or, as the case may require) the Common Law of England, (as it was at the time of Magna Charta, in 1215.)

— Lynsander Spooner's translation of the Magna Charta Chapter 39.

It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge’s view of the law, against their own opinion, judgment, and conscience. John Adams

There is irrefutable evidence. Look it up for yourselves; it will take you days to gather all the truth in this matter.

The bottom line: our Liberty is so Sacred, that for the government to take that Liberty away, they had better have a darn good reason, and it ultimately is up to the Citizen Juror to decide if the government has the right to do that or not.

Next time you are summoned for Jury duty, do not scorn it or refuse it, do your Duty and PUT THE GOVERNMENT ON TRIAL.

You, then, can count yourself among the Patriots. 

The Vote

We are so fooled by the logic that we as citizens have the ultimate power because we can vote.
What a joke.
Don't you realize that you can vote all day long, and even get the one that you voted for and it means nothing?
Absolutely nothing.Has there been any change no matter which party is in power? The democrats and Obama are the scourge of the land and the oppressors? Who was in power before them? Oh yeah, the party that gave us the Patriot Act and NAFTA, and GATT and the WTO.
You tell me, have you voted for anyone at the all powerful EPA? They regulate every bit of your lives and you can do nothing about it. Why does your energy cost so much? EPA regulation. On fuel, emissions, water, air, the EPA is an uncontrolled beast that has no master. They create LAW and you will obey it! They create LAW and it costs you, the lowly serf, not only money, but Liberty.
The ATF? They create LAW! You disobey it, you go to jail. They can change their mind at any time they want, it can be legal today, and put you in jail tomorrow.
Health and Human services? You better raise your child the way they want or you will get them taken away, and you will go to jail.
Wage and Labor? You don't have a right to privately contract with another free man; they set the rules, you better follow them or you will go to jail.
Homeland Security? Was it a lawmaker that was voted in by the people that mandated people flying on commercial airlines must go through a degrading, groping search to fly?
OSHA? Your jobsite had better meet their safety standards, no matter how illogical it is, or you will be put out of business from all the fines they give you.
Federal Reserve? You think they care that your IRA just disappeared? Do they give one flip over "congressional oversight?" You think they care when Congress suggests that they are going to devalue our dollar to the point of no return?
Are you catching on yet? In any of these departments that control every single aspect of your life, and I only covered a few of them, do you have the power to vote one of them out? No. The vote is a joke, to keep the serfs in line, giving us the false hope that they need to just keep obeying the master, 'cause your guy might get in next time. And we have people on both sides of the spectrum (the fact that there are only 2 parties involved should be an eyeopener all on its own) telling us, hyping us, to keep slaving away, next time your vote will count. And we continue, and one side wins, then another, then the other..... it's called insanity. When one continues to do the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.
Folks, we are serfs. We are slaves. You are not free. Do not think if you stood up for one moment our great leaders wouldn't shut you down, with more ferocity than Mohmar Kahdafi ever dreamed of.
You are allowed to do what they allow you to do. End of story.
And your vote in 2012 won't change a dang thing. Your vote this fall won't change a dang thing. At least not on the National level.
Worry about your own backyard, try to get your local community straightened out at the very most. If not that, get your neighborhood on the same page.If you can't get that done, get on the same page as your neighbor.
Our Founders had knowledge that voting was a sacred principle in government, but they didn't have what we have today; they were a part of a Constitutional Republic. We now live in a democracy, or a "majority vote."
Back then, only folks who held property were even allowed to vote. And the voting was for state officers, who voted for Federal officers. They warned us of the wolf called bureaucracy, but we have ceded to it.
What we have today is what we were warned about.

“A large portion of our citizens, who will not believe, even on the evidence of facts, that any public evils exist, or are impending. They deride the apprehensions of those who foresee, that licentiousness will prove, as it ever has proved, fatal to liberty.”
— Fisher Ames (1758-1808) Founding Father and framer of the First Amendment to the Constitution

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
— James Madison (1751-1836) Fourth President of the United States

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."
— James Madison

"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
— Thomas B. Reed (1839-1902) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, from Maine 

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Benjamin Franklin 

Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn 

Thinking of mass democracy as government controlled by its employees helps explain the difficulty of changing government policy.
James Davidson 

It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order.
Thomas Jefferson 

This is a good example of today's voting. I don't deny that voting was once a good thing, but today, it is just an instrument of the government to appease us. To see who can get the most freebies taken from the citizens.

But there is another vote that can still effect change, which we will talk about next time.  

Let's free Mike Anderson

There is nothing more noble for a Patriot in the cause for Liberty than to fight injustice, to help the helpless, to defend those who can't defend themselves, and to speak up for those who can't speak for themselves.
It is a duty charged against us to protect the Liberties of all our Citizens, even the ones who we might disagree with politically or philosophically. If one of our Citizens is unjustly incarcerated, if his Freedoms are unrightly taken from him, it is our duty to see that this wrong be made right.
This is true in the case of Michael Anderson. He has been incarcerated and  charged with conspiracy, a serious charge but an accusation  that is extremely murky at best. Are you now guilty of crimes just for knowing someone?
 I personally know Mike, and I know quite a few of his good friends, and we know this is true, Mike Anderson is no murderer, and is innocent of the charges being levied against him. Mike's home was raided and his front door destroyed, leaving his wife and 2 small children,(the oldest is 3), homeless. Mike has strong political views that don't differ much from thousands of people I know, and is no weak-minded, brainwashed follower of any anti-government group. Mike has an engineering degree in mining, and had just started a new job when he was arrested after being out of work for several months.
A choice is laid before us now, we can sit back in fear and watch as an American is swept away in a highly charged and visible case and forgotten, or we can do something to help.
I would like you to consider helping Mike financially so he can get a good lawyer to fight this case for him. We have all seen how a good lawyer can make things happen, and a bad one or having none at all can leave you in jail forever, right or wrong.
We see things like this every day, and we know something is wrong, but we feel we have no way to effect change.
 This time you can. Let's do Liberty a true Justice, and help free Michael Anderson. I know he would do it for you.
Thank you.
Joshua Bennett

De Facto Liberty

Here is a guest opinion from a good friend of mine, David Geissel.

"Humans exist in perfect freedom. Obedience is a choice. Government is therefore an illusion."

Wolf DeVoon - Government is a Quack Faith-Healer

For all the Constitutional sophistry that exists in the "liberty movement," only a tiny minority has observed that, for all the chest thumping about returning to a "Constitutional Republic" (whatever that means), the Constitution has not gone away. It is sitting there, quietly sanctioning every action of the Federal Government. It gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority in determination of what laws will be enforced, authorizes the Income Tax and, through the powers delegated to Congress, implicitly sanctions the Federal Reserve System.

To complain of Judges "legislating from the bench" is to be anti-Constitution. To complain about the Income Tax is to be anti-Constitution. I point this out simply to make the point that the Laws of the Land are not necessarily something to advocate for or against. They are what they are, and to wave the so-called flag in support of any established legal system is to endorse a set of contradictions. Claiming to be a Constitutionalist is to wave the flag in support of all Supreme Court decisions and the IRS. Claiming to be a "strict" Constitutionalist is to do so "strictly."  Am I missing something here?

It's said that that the problem is a lack of adherence to the "founders' intent" by the courts, etc. What was their intent? Which founders? This assertion largely misses the point anyway. No matter what your predisposition (left, right, whatever collective you claim to be part of), it's clear that the ability to shape the role of government in America was left to the people (the majority mob) through the amendment process and democratic process. To complain about what exists today is to be critical of democracy itself (including in its "Constitutional Republic" form). With Democracy being elevated to the level of God (maybe one notch above) in the 20th century, such a complaint would make one a political heretic. Count me in.

Lysander Spooner sums this up in his essay No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority:

The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class, no doubt – each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is a "free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such-like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to, so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

A Mirror

This is where a mirror comes in handy. The Truth (big T) is that Americans have gotten exactly what they have asked for, demanded even. As the majority mob shifted from a mindset of "live and let live" to "I've got mine jack!" the government has capitulated to its demands. At only one notable point in American history did the minority mob question the legitimacy of mobocracy as a system of projecting power and remove their sanction for it (and they did so by setting up their own mobocracy, nicely done). In almost every instance since then (and especially since the founding of Imperial America in 1898) the minority mob has only questioned what the majority was doing with said power and set about attempting to recapture it for themselves.

As fun as it is to blame the "left" for some vast conspiracy to "ruin America," the cold hard fact that those in the "liberty movement" don't want to face is that they should look into the mirror if they want to know where to start with their inane blame game. The lust for power runs just as deep on the "right" as it does on the "left." Sadly though, the irony of complaining about the Federal Government while simultaneously dumping vast amounts of energy and money into elections in an effort to take back control of leviathan is completely lost on them. Don't want a control freak telling you how to live? Then stop being a control freak who seeks to tell other people how to live. Profound.

Thus, there will be no meaningful social change until the following is both realized and acted upon:

THE SHORTCOMINGS OF GOVERNMENT ARE NOT ADMINISTRATIVE.

THEY ARE EXISTENTIAL.

As long as those who claim to seek liberty attempt to do so by seeking power, they will get what they deserve: servitude.

Perhaps Étienne de La Boétie put it best in The Politics of Obedience: Discourse of Voluntary Servitude:

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”

Quote

I saw this quote today, and how true it is.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -C.S. Lewis

more from the other post

I want to expand a little more.
I was told that we need a constitutional amendment, a parental rights amendment. The reason being that the U.S. could sign the U.N.'s "Rights of the child" treaty.
So?
Are we such a defeated people that we would cower and obey such a treaty? "Well a treaty becomes the law of the land!"
Really?
Don't those that would have to sign such a treaty take an oath to "Uphold and defend the constitution of the united States against all enemies foreign and domestic"?
Doesn't that infer that even a treaty, if it is unconstitutional, is null and void? We are not required to follow such a treaty. In fact, we are obligated to resist it. Our rights cannot be taken, even by treaty, because those Rights were NOT granted by man.
Again I say, the state only has the power we give it. If the 3% stand together and say NO!, the state would have few options.
Dare to think outside the bun, dare to take a stand for Liberty. You are not the servant.


Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. John Locke

The Statist

It's interesting to me how many "conservative" folks out there are such diehard statists. It makes me sick for our Republic.
State's rights!! State's rights!! They scream it until they are blue in the face, and don't seem to understand what they are clamoring for. You want the state to be your master? Why? Because the state has your best interest in mind more than the federal guv boys do? I personally despise the statist mind set. A man, no better or greater than any other, is elected to office. He instantly knows what is good for you and takes it upon himself to pass law to let you know he does. And the hordes gather around him and say "yes! lead us to freedom!!"
But it's not so much the fact that the elected official thinks he is the end all and be all, it's more disturbing that the people think he is also.

"We need to pass a law to keep our gun rights."
"We need to pass legislation to protect our parental rights."

Have you heard these before? It's the statist mindset at work, thinking that freedoms and Liberty come from and are not only granted by the state, but can also be taken by the state. If the state can create a "right," that same creator can take that right away.
I do not have parental rights that were granted to me by the state. And I will not allow myself to support a cause that transfers to the state my right as a parent to create a state-granted right for me. My parental rights came before the state, granted to me by my Creator. I created the state, so I will not submit to the state's supposed ownership or guardianship of my children.
My right to defend myself from anything or anyone that would harm myself, or family's life, liberty or property came before the state was created; it came from my Creator, not only a Right but a Duty. Woe to me if I will not protect my family. Woe to the state if it tries to prevent me from doing so.
Our Bill of Rights did not grant us those Rights. The Founders simply enumerated, or numbered, a few of our Liberties, to give us a sample of what they had in their vision of our Republic.
You will know a statist by how they talk. They speak of many freedoms, but see the state as the answer to "get" those freedoms.
A Freeman interested in Liberty knows his Rights cannot be granted, and therefore cannot be taken, from a state. The state only has the power we let them have. Period.
I am for Individual Liberty. I have no desire to go on and on about the state's power and what great freedoms the state can create through legislation.

So stop looking for good laws to advance your freedom and recognize that it is those laws in themselves that have taken your freedom away!
And stop submitting, at least in your mind stop submitting, to the state that is telling you it is the author and finisher of our freedom. That is a start. You are free. Your freedoms come from the Higher power, and you have a vested interest to protect them, from ALL enemies that would seek to take them from you and your posterity.

The end game is this, the state is your enemy; it survives ultimately by making you its servant.
You must decide for yourselves who will be your master. "Choose this day whom you will serve."

To quote AP, "RESIST"!

Joshua

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever." - Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781 Thomas Jefferson


"Liberty or Death"!

Of Sovereignty and things

Sovereignty, what a buzz word. We have a national government which claims sovereignty over the states and the people, we have the states rights folks who insist the state is the sovereign entity over the federal government and the people. We have people who claim they are sovereign citizens, and create silly organizations and groups that sell "how to be a Sovereign" packets when in reality they have no clue what they are talking about.
But what is correct? What does Sovereignty even mean, and how does it affect us, or should we even care?
First, let's look up the definition of the word, and define our terms.

Sovereign: A chief ruler with supreme power; 

one possessing sovereignty. 

(q.v.) It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with

 limited powers. 

     2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the 

body of the people. 

Well that's pretty simple. A Sovereign is one who possesses

 Supreme power.In matters of the state,

 we see the 10th amendment to the Constitution

 telling us that :

 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the

 Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, 

are reserved to the States respectively,
 or to the people. "

So as far as state matters are concerned, the national government is sovereign in all powers delegated to it within the strict confines of the Constitution. In all state matters not delegated to the national government, the powers are left to the states, and the people, and the states are the sovereign. 

But who is Supreme?

When the People cast off the British crown, they were no longer subjects, their state and federal governments were not yet formed, and each individual was the Supreme Sovereign.

When they formed their individual free states, the people simply combined their Sovereignty into a collective sovereign state. They never relinquished their Sovereignty to that state, they simply elected civil servants to wield that Sovereignty for the protection of their individual Sovereignty.
The individual states then combined themselves to form the union, or union of states. The union now had sovereignty from the states and the Constitution that the states ratified.
How then can the federal government claim Sovereignty over the states outside of the Constitution that the states ratified when they formed the union? The states form and are the union, so how can the created rule over the creator?

Or how can the state now claim to be the sovereign over its people? The People created the state, and nothing created should rule over its creator. The state is the servant of the people, which implies that the people are the masters, or Sovereign over the state. If the People create the state and are the masters of it, then the union that the states combined create is also servant to the People.

Let's see what our Founders had to say about it. Yes, you may be shocked to know that they knew how important it was that the national government, the state governments, and the People all knew where they stood in the pecking order. 

"To the Constitution of the United States the term sovereign, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves ‘sovereign’ people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration." James Wilson, Supreme Court Justice and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


The phrase "serenely conscious of the fact" denotes that the Founders knew full well that the People were Sovereign, and didn't feel the need to include it in the Constitution. It was a given.

"As a Judge of this Court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as a part of the “People of the United States,” did not surrender the Supreme or Sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves". James Wilson

"Concerning the prerogative of Kings, and concerning the sovereignty of States, much has been said and written; but little has been said and written concerning a subject much more dignified and important, the majesty of the people. The mode of expression, which I would substitute in the place of that generally used, is not only politically, but also (for between true liberty and true taste there is a close alliance) classically more correct." James Wilson

..."at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. First Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay


From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens. John Jay

Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the 

absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; (q.v.) 

and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its 

public functionaries, is in the people of the state. (q.v.) 2 Dall. 471; and 

vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. Sec. 208; 1 

Toull. n. 20 Merl. Repert. h.t. ..Bouviers Law Dictionary

To those that want to push the state to be the supreme power I want to warn you. While our federal government is indeed oppressive, looking to the state to be our master is no better. Look at California, where almost every Liberty-inhibiting regulation on the People has its start. While I do think the states must assert themselves and be more willing to fight the federal government for the freedom of the People, ultimately the People must stand up to both the state and federal governments, and reclaim their Rights and Liberties before they are finally and forever lost.  

More laws, to make us free?

We have these days more laws than anyone can possibly ever know or understand. The thought is that our politicians are put into place to legislate to the point that every aspect of our daily lives is regulated. We apparently would be immobile if it were not for every statute we have, protecting us from ourselves.

I have also been told we need these laws to protect us from all the murderers, thieves and rapist out there. Really?

Do these never ending regulations give us protections we didn't have before? 

Or do the various statutes we have actually deprive us of our Liberty?

 If we look at the writings of our Founders, we find that the legislating powers that the different state and federal legislatures had were limited within the scope of the Constitution, and were never intended to regulate our everyday lives.

"...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819) 

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement." (Thomas Jefferson)

In these 2 examples, Jefferson tells us of the intent of the government that the people had just created. The basic nature of government is to protect the individual's liberty, not to impose man's will over others. 

 Basic common law already protected us from murder and other acts like it. There has been no need to pass a law saying it's a crime to murder someone, it's a natural law that we all know.

If you harmed another person's Right to Life, Liberty, or Property, you were to be punished and make the other person whole again. You had to pay restitution to the one you violated.

James Wilson, one of only 6 signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, said " States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker." 

He also stated in a legal opinion that "states have no claim over her Citizens", and that "Supreme Power resides in the People".

How then can a state regulate everything that we do? What right does an un-elected person working for the state have in making directives against the People with the full force and effect of law? What right do they have to tell me what things I can and can't do with my own Property for example? 

I say that they do not have that right. Patrick Henry made it as plain and simple as anyone could when he said," The Constitution is not an instrument of the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the People to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests". In these united States we have Citizens, not subjects, and the state exists at our pleasure. To say the state can institute law and regulation at will against its Citizens is against the very foundation of our Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.

It is Tyranny at its finest.