July 28, 2009
The Destruction of the Constitution
[SOURCE]:
Thomas E. Woods
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
The Federalists
The Anti-Federalists
During the founding of America, the Federalists were wearing masks -- they falsely called themselves "Federalists".
But in fact, they were nationalists and even monarchists who wanted one national government, instead of 13 national governments, as it then existed with the Articles of Confederation.
They were the part of America who, prior to the Revolution, either never wanted an American Revolution in the first place or who simply wanted to replace a British crown with an American crown.
The Articles of Confederation were little different to the European Union of today, where todays Frenchmen still believe they have a sovereign French country and today's Italians still believe they belong to a sovereign Italian government.
In fact, the word "state" has changed, simply because we have misused the word to invoke the State of Virginia as a weak administrative unit of the United States.
But in Jefferson's days, a state was what we call a nation today.
The State of Virginia was Thomas Jefferson's country.
Any changes to the Articles of Confederation were looked at suspiciously, especially by Thomas Jefferson.
Knowing this, nationalists and monarchists put on a mask to call themselves "federalists" during the time they were selling America on the idea of a Constitution; while once in office, by their own actions, the mask came off revealing them for who they really were.
Thus James Madison, John Jay and George Washington were nationalists in disguise; while Alexander Hamilton was an outright monarchist.
The "One Nation" styled nationalists of the day were just as much a pack of weasels as our "One World" globalists are today.
Anyone who opposed the "One Nation" nationalists were labeled as "anti-federalists" or later as "rebels".
Anyone today who opposes the "One World" globalists are labeled as Hitler-type fascist nationalists.
Ironic isn't it for Constitutional patriots to be defending a "nationalist" government that Thomas Jefferson would have abhorred.
The ones trying to keep the Articles of Confederation, or insuring that the Constitution did not centralize too much power were the real federalists.
Since their "federalist" word was hijacked by the nationalists, the real federalists called themselves Republicans, especially in Virginia.
These real Federalists were Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, James Monroe and of course, Thomas Jefferson.
Kevin Gutzman, in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, shows many times that the so-called Federalists have often referred to the Federalist Papers, as their ruling authority, when that ruling authority had already been discussed and rejected by the official state delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
In other words, the Federalist Papers holds no greater authority over Constitutional interpretation than an editorial written in your local newspaper.
Which is exactly what The Fedealist Papers were -- a series of editorial propaganda, by the so-called Federalists, meant to sway American opinion their way, having little to do with the original intent agreed upon at the Convention in Philadelphia.
For a real Constitutional interpretation, one must read the actual notes of the Constitutional Convention to determine why certain parts were included in the Constitution, why certain other parts were excluded from it, and what compromises were made in agreeing to ratify the Constitution.
Debated in the Constitutional Convention:
The so-called Federalists wanted a Federal veto over any state legislation. (James Madison's idea)
Of course, everyone knows that Federal Judges perform any needed veto of state regulation anyway today which the Feds do not approve of. Or, that Congress bribes the States to do using their own tax money.
Debated in the Constitutional Convention:
The so-called Federalists wanted for either the President to appoint the Senators (Alexander Hamilton's idea), or for the House of Representatives to appoint the Senators for their State (James Madison's idea).
Either way, in doing so, the State governments would have had no authority or say in any law written by the federal government.
The States would have had Federal Taxation of its citizens without Representation.
The winning argument at the Constitutional Convention was for the State legislatures to have the power to appoint the Senators for their State, thus insuring that the States had a veto power over meddling federal legislation.
You may not know, that the 17th Amendment achieved this goal for the nationalists by having "the People" of the State vote for the Senators, and thus indeed, the States, starting in 1913, were written out of the delicate "checks and balances" scheme meant for the Federal government.
Debated in the Constitutional Convention:
The fake Federalists proposed several ways Congress would exert its authority.
They wanted the Constitution to say:
The winning Constitutional plan for Congress, as we all know, was for Congress to have a very limited authority.
Article I, Section 8 precisely defines the authority Congress has.
To be sure, The 9th and 10th Amendment from the Bill of Rights, insured that any authority NOT given to Congress was reserved to the States or to the People.
Well we all know that the Federal government operates today under the principle of "Congress may legislate as it will", since the Supreme Court is often beating them to the punch in "making federal law".
The so-called Framers of the Constitution had no real authority over the Constitution.
They used lawyer verbiage to write the sections ; as mere representatives of the real power of the States, they argued back and forth over provisions of it to insure there were no ways that a run-away federal government could worm its way out of its provisions; but they had no authority themselves.
They had no legal effect.
They were merely draftsmen for the States.
The real meaning and intent of the Constitution is what the States understood about the meaning of the Constitution.
Exactly because the "framers" were secret nationalists, our media-Scribe press gives them a reverent place in American history.
The real authority behind the Constitution was the ratifiers, the States.
Many say that the people are the sovereigns, but when have the people ever voted for anything? When did "the People" ever vote for or against having a Constitution or any Amendment to it?
As has since been done in Europe...
Common Market --> European Union --> EU Constitution
The bureaucrats of the European Union, already evolved from its "Common Market" commercial union origins, had decided to replace its own "Articles of Confederation" with its own "Constitution".
Starting on October 29, 2004, the "Framers" of the EU Constitution sent the finished Constitution to the member States for "Ratification".
The EU Parliament naturally signed off on January 12, 2005 and the legislatures of country after country started ratifying the agreement.
Eighteen European Parliaments in a row ratified for a EU Constitution.
Only when the people of France were given the right to vote, up or down, was the power grab halted dead in its tracks.
The remaining 8 countries cancelled their votes.
Perhaps the People do need a revolution every 20 years or so, as Thomas Jefferson advised.
The first President had the privilege of appointing all the Supreme Court Judges.
George Washington got to appoint a chief justiceship, and five associate justiceships.
And since our first President was a nationalist, all members of our first SCOTUS were nationalists.
The chief justiceship was given to John Jay, a coauthor of The Federalist. (Which if you remember, in a truthful world, The Federalist should have been called The Nationalist.)
The fix was in from the start.
Where George Washington tried to be "independent" and refrained from playing partisan games, President John Adams was another matter altogether.
Especially so when in 1801, John Adams appointed John Marshall as the Chief Justice -- the anti-Christ of the Nationalists.
You may think of George Washington in the vein of Ronald Reagan, inspiring America to greatness, with John Adams on the coattails of George Washington, being the day's George H.W. Bush, on the coattails of Ronal Reagan.
Where George Bush was a political hack for internationalists in our day, John Adams, the first and only Federalist President, was a political hack for nationalists in his day.
It was a good thing that the States had insisted upon a Bill of Rights and witnessed it being trashed almost immediately, for these patriots rejected all the Federalist Party candidates, once the fake Federalists had shown their true colors while in office.
The Federalist Party was rejected by freedom-loving Americans, especially in the western states, and slowly died away.
Thomas Jefferson, as the third President of the United States, swept away most of the debris of the fake Federalist Party he had inherited from John Adams.
New England threatens to Secede
This is when the fake Federalists of the New England states threatened to secede from the United States. But they were let down by the Supreme Court, which, when it returned, accepted the repeals constitutionality.
Another one of those upside down interpretations of the Constitution.
If the Constitution had wanted judges impeached for simple, everyday crimes and misdemeanors, the ones you and I go to jail for and pay fines for, they would have left off the word "high".
So, we need to know what "high" means, don't we?
One thing is for sure, the Constitution does not want Supreme Court Justices impeached for speeding tickets and unpaid parking tickets -- that is, normal crimes and misdemeanors is not what the Constitution is talking about.
The Case of Samuel Chase -- The one, only and last SCOTUS to ever be impeached
Like many SCOTUS justices, Samuel Chase starts off as a strong federalist in the real sense of the word, and ends his career as a strong federalist in the nationalist sense of the word.
The betrayal eventually lead to his impeachment, especially since Samuel Chase gave so many good reasons to do so.
In other words, Samuel Chase had not only violated the 1st Amendment in prosecuting Callender for exercising his free speech rights, but violated the checks and balances of government by becoming the executive, legislator, judge, jury, and executioner of Callender.
The poster boy for an impeachable judge.
But the Senate would not impeach him.
Why?
In the Constitution, the words "crime" and "misdemeanor" do not have the same meaning as "high crimes" and "high misdemeanor".
"High" refers to "high office" and the political crimes which take place in a high office.
A historian of English law has pointed out examples of high misdemeanors to be:
In other words, high misdemeanors refers to purely political offenses that would never be tried before an ordinary court.
High misdemeanors refers to the political crime of failing to give justice in a courtroom.
A judge cannot be removed for an ordinary crime, but only for a "high" crime.
For in the real world, no one really cares if the judge fails to pay his own parking tickets, but we do care if he decrees torture till death for us not paying our parking tickets.
President Jefferson realized that the Constitutional Checks and Balances of impeachment had become a farce when he said:
In the end, since disobeying his oath to protect and defend the Constitution is not an "indictable criminal offense", then SCOTUS justices can ignore the Constitution at will.
They do not fear impeachment, in the least.
The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794 and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court by someone of another state or country.
This amendment was adopted in response to, and in order to overrule, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).
Can there be no greater proof of the assertion of state sovereignty and everyone's desire for it than this?
Congress proposed the Amendment and 13 of the 15 existing States approved. (Only New Jersey and Pennsylvania did not ratify the 11th Amendment.)
The States jealously guarded their immunity from lawsuits by the federal government.
After insisting upon the 10th Amendment, the 11th Amendment would also would prove futile in preventing a tyrannical SCOTUS from developing a diabolical federal government which runs roughshod over the States.
With life time appointments and with no fear of impeachment, our judicial system has become the nation's monarchy.
Marshall's Federalist SCOTUS
The Constitution gives the President the power to veto any piece of legislation coming from Congress which he does not want to enforce. Not to be undone, with enough votes, Congress can override the President's veto, and demand that he enforce their new law.
The Constitution gives the Judiciary the power to hear cases involving the breaking of laws Congress passed and the President signed into law. But it specifically does not give the judiciary the power to veto Congressional legislation it does not favor.
The judiciary is not the only branch of government required to follow the Constitution. The President and Congress are just as required to preserve and defend it.
The "checks and balances" power to correct the President or Congress from violating the Constitution is given to the people at election time.
As their "checks and balances", one can see that the judiciary may "refuse" to hear a case based on any unconstitutional law; however, the Constitution does not give the Judiciary the power to veto any law.
Judges are tightly constrained by the Bill of Rights
Please note that the Constitution does not give the Judiciary power to even be the final judge of the law being broken in a particular case.
The jury decides the final outcome.
Judges are not even allowed to decide the specific case in front of them, let alone the fundamental law the crime is based upon.
You tell me if a judge so mistrusted by the ratifiers of the Constitution, as to be so tied down by laws on their powers, would believe that these same judges could invalidate any law they pleased to?
The ratifiers of the Constitution knew that giving power to the legal class, trained in law, was like letting the fox guard the hen-house.
The 4th Amendment
The 5th Amendment
The 6th Amendment
The 7th Amendment
The 8th Amendment
The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison gave themselves a veto over any law it deemed unconstitutional.
At first, the SCOTUS limited itself to declaring unconstitutional laws invalid.
Later, it would refuse to declare unconstitutional laws it liked to be unconstitutional and it would "legislate" a few unconstitutional laws of its own into existance without the help of Congress.
Marshall's Federalist SCOTUS
The entire Georgia Legislature, save one, was bribed by a land developer to grant it a huge amount of land. The legislators were thrown out in the next election and invalidated the "contract" between the bribed representatives and the Yazoo Scandal swindlers.
Using the "contracts clause", the SCOTUS struck down the State law repealing the "contract".
In doing so, they made two major blunders.
In other words, the contract was invalid and the fix was already in place. The SCOTUS had no case to give them authority.
Yet they sided with the innocents who had bought illegal land from the land swindler and declared the new law unconstitutional.
The Constitutional Convention discussed and then rejected giving Congress the power to veto State laws.
Common sense then dictates that the ratifiers would also have rejected giving the SCOTUS the power to veto State laws.
In future years, the SCOTUS would not just veto State laws, they would become super-legislators and super-executives over States.
Marshall's Federalist SCOTUS
The State of Virginia confiscated the property of Loyalists during the Revolutionary War and their law remained in effect after the war.
A U.S. treaty with Great Britain after the war protected the property of Loyalists.
It would not take too much imagination to conclude which side the SCOTUS ruled -- treaties over State laws.
Originally, the Federal government was to have limited power
The Constitutional Convention:
Strange, given all the above, that the Ratifiers of the Constitution would have wanted this:
Does this sound like the government the Ratifiers of the Constitution wanted America to have?
Or does it sound like the government they had a Revolutionary War to break away from?
The SCOTUS then in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee placed its authority over the authority of State legislators and State Supreme Courts.
It would not be the last time that the SCOTUS ran afoul of the Constitution.
SCOTUS gives itself
President James Madison was coming off the War of 1812 heavily in debt. He wanted a Second Bank of the United States to be established.
Many felt that the Federal government was not given any authority to create a central bank.
Maryland in particular made a law all but outlawing a branch bank of the Second Bank of the United States to operate within Maryland.
When the Maryland branch manager of the 2nd Bank of the United States, James William McCulloch, refused to comply with Maryland's law, then Maryland sued in federal court.
Guess who won in the courts of the Federal government? -- Yes indeed, the Feds won.
Overturned in this case was
All this was undone by the Marshall Court.
Thomas Jefferson was not at all pleased:
The enactment of the 17th Amendment, where the States lost their veto power in the Senate, their "checks and balances", greatly accelerated the centralization of federal power in Washington, and is now allowing for the globilization of power in the United Nations.
But it cannot be ignored that, even before the enactment of the 17th Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States believed it had a veto power over the veto power of the State's Senate.
And it was not shy about ruling over State legislatures and State Supreme Courts as well.
In any solution to our problems today, a great priority has to be placed upon reigning in the oligarchial powers of these unelected, unaccountable, dictators for life.
You can read further at Solutions.
Article located at:
http://www.thechristiansolution.com/doc2009/209_FromtheBeginning.html
The Destruction of the Constitution
Started from the Beginning
[SOURCE]:
Thomas E. Woods
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
An 18th century philosopher said,
"When I speak -- I put on a mask."
"When I act -- I am forced to take it off."
The Federalists
were actually Nationalists
The Anti-Federalists
were actually Federalists
During the founding of America, the Federalists were wearing masks -- they falsely called themselves "Federalists".
But in fact, they were nationalists and even monarchists who wanted one national government, instead of 13 national governments, as it then existed with the Articles of Confederation.
They were the part of America who, prior to the Revolution, either never wanted an American Revolution in the first place or who simply wanted to replace a British crown with an American crown.
The Articles of Confederation were little different to the European Union of today, where todays Frenchmen still believe they have a sovereign French country and today's Italians still believe they belong to a sovereign Italian government.
In fact, the word "state" has changed, simply because we have misused the word to invoke the State of Virginia as a weak administrative unit of the United States.
But in Jefferson's days, a state was what we call a nation today.
The State of Virginia was Thomas Jefferson's country.
Any changes to the Articles of Confederation were looked at suspiciously, especially by Thomas Jefferson.
Knowing this, nationalists and monarchists put on a mask to call themselves "federalists" during the time they were selling America on the idea of a Constitution; while once in office, by their own actions, the mask came off revealing them for who they really were.
Thus James Madison, John Jay and George Washington were nationalists in disguise; while Alexander Hamilton was an outright monarchist.
The "One Nation" styled nationalists of the day were just as much a pack of weasels as our "One World" globalists are today.
Anyone who opposed the "One Nation" nationalists were labeled as "anti-federalists" or later as "rebels".
Anyone today who opposes the "One World" globalists are labeled as Hitler-type fascist nationalists.
Ironic isn't it for Constitutional patriots to be defending a "nationalist" government that Thomas Jefferson would have abhorred.
The ones trying to keep the Articles of Confederation, or insuring that the Constitution did not centralize too much power were the real federalists.
Since their "federalist" word was hijacked by the nationalists, the real federalists called themselves Republicans, especially in Virginia.
These real Federalists were Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, James Monroe and of course, Thomas Jefferson.
The Federalist Papers were never an authority
Kevin Gutzman, in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, shows many times that the so-called Federalists have often referred to the Federalist Papers, as their ruling authority, when that ruling authority had already been discussed and rejected by the official state delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
In other words, the Federalist Papers holds no greater authority over Constitutional interpretation than an editorial written in your local newspaper.
Which is exactly what The Fedealist Papers were -- a series of editorial propaganda, by the so-called Federalists, meant to sway American opinion their way, having little to do with the original intent agreed upon at the Convention in Philadelphia.
For a real Constitutional interpretation, one must read the actual notes of the Constitutional Convention to determine why certain parts were included in the Constitution, why certain other parts were excluded from it, and what compromises were made in agreeing to ratify the Constitution.
Debated in the Constitutional Convention:
Federal Veto over State Legislation --- FAILED
The so-called Federalists wanted a Federal veto over any state legislation. (James Madison's idea)
Of course, everyone knows that Federal Judges perform any needed veto of state regulation anyway today which the Feds do not approve of. Or, that Congress bribes the States to do using their own tax money.
Debated in the Constitutional Convention:
State Veto over Federal Legislation --- PASSED
The so-called Federalists wanted for either the President to appoint the Senators (Alexander Hamilton's idea), or for the House of Representatives to appoint the Senators for their State (James Madison's idea).
Either way, in doing so, the State governments would have had no authority or say in any law written by the federal government.
The States would have had Federal Taxation of its citizens without Representation.
The winning argument at the Constitutional Convention was for the State legislatures to have the power to appoint the Senators for their State, thus insuring that the States had a veto power over meddling federal legislation.
You may not know, that the 17th Amendment achieved this goal for the nationalists by having "the People" of the State vote for the Senators, and thus indeed, the States, starting in 1913, were written out of the delicate "checks and balances" scheme meant for the Federal government.
Debated in the Constitutional Convention:
Congress may legislate as it will --- FAILED
Congress may legislate in any area to which it considers the States incompetent --- FAILED
The fake Federalists proposed several ways Congress would exert its authority.
They wanted the Constitution to say:
-
"Congress may legislate as it will"
or
"Congress may legislate in any area to which it considers the States incompetent"
The winning Constitutional plan for Congress, as we all know, was for Congress to have a very limited authority.
Article I, Section 8 precisely defines the authority Congress has.
To be sure, The 9th and 10th Amendment from the Bill of Rights, insured that any authority NOT given to Congress was reserved to the States or to the People.
Well we all know that the Federal government operates today under the principle of "Congress may legislate as it will", since the Supreme Court is often beating them to the punch in "making federal law".
The Framers of the Constitution were legal nobodies
The RATIFIERS of the Constitution are the Owners of this Contract
The so-called Framers of the Constitution had no real authority over the Constitution.
They used lawyer verbiage to write the sections ; as mere representatives of the real power of the States, they argued back and forth over provisions of it to insure there were no ways that a run-away federal government could worm its way out of its provisions; but they had no authority themselves.
They had no legal effect.
They were merely draftsmen for the States.
The real meaning and intent of the Constitution is what the States understood about the meaning of the Constitution.
Exactly because the "framers" were secret nationalists, our media-Scribe press gives them a reverent place in American history.
The real authority behind the Constitution was the ratifiers, the States.
Many say that the people are the sovereigns, but when have the people ever voted for anything? When did "the People" ever vote for or against having a Constitution or any Amendment to it?
As has since been done in Europe...
Common Market --> European Union --> EU Constitution
The bureaucrats of the European Union, already evolved from its "Common Market" commercial union origins, had decided to replace its own "Articles of Confederation" with its own "Constitution".
Starting on October 29, 2004, the "Framers" of the EU Constitution sent the finished Constitution to the member States for "Ratification".
The EU Parliament naturally signed off on January 12, 2005 and the legislatures of country after country started ratifying the agreement.
Eighteen European Parliaments in a row ratified for a EU Constitution.
Only when the people of France were given the right to vote, up or down, was the power grab halted dead in its tracks.
The remaining 8 countries cancelled their votes.
Perhaps the People do need a revolution every 20 years or so, as Thomas Jefferson advised.
George Washington stacked the Court
He Appointed a Nationalist Court
The first President had the privilege of appointing all the Supreme Court Judges.
George Washington got to appoint a chief justiceship, and five associate justiceships.
And since our first President was a nationalist, all members of our first SCOTUS were nationalists.
The chief justiceship was given to John Jay, a coauthor of The Federalist. (Which if you remember, in a truthful world, The Federalist should have been called The Nationalist.)
The fix was in from the start.
Thomas Jefferson was for real Change
"Change you can count on"
Where George Washington tried to be "independent" and refrained from playing partisan games, President John Adams was another matter altogether.
Especially so when in 1801, John Adams appointed John Marshall as the Chief Justice -- the anti-Christ of the Nationalists.
You may think of George Washington in the vein of Ronald Reagan, inspiring America to greatness, with John Adams on the coattails of George Washington, being the day's George H.W. Bush, on the coattails of Ronal Reagan.
Where George Bush was a political hack for internationalists in our day, John Adams, the first and only Federalist President, was a political hack for nationalists in his day.
It was a good thing that the States had insisted upon a Bill of Rights and witnessed it being trashed almost immediately, for these patriots rejected all the Federalist Party candidates, once the fake Federalists had shown their true colors while in office.
The Federalist Party was rejected by freedom-loving Americans, especially in the western states, and slowly died away.
Thomas Jefferson, as the third President of the United States, swept away most of the debris of the fake Federalist Party he had inherited from John Adams.
Jefferson's victory was supposed to inaugurate a new era of strict constitutional interpretation, putting an end to presidential, congressional, and judicial usurpations of power.
It certainly wrought a radical change in the programs and policies of the federal government.
Shortly after his inauguration, Congress repealed all internal taxes, so that the only sources of federal revenue would be tariffs and sales of federally owned land.
It also slashed the military budget dramatically. Unlike modern "budget-cutting" politicians who claim to "slash" government spending while merely reducing its rate of growth by a point or two, Jefferson's Republicans ultimately eliminated all seagoing vessels from the navy and cut the army's manpower by nearly 95%.
The loathed Sedition Act expired on the last day of John Adam's administration, and Jefferson not only pardoned everyone convicted under it, but also returned the fined they had paid.
Republicans also acted to rein in the federal judiciary.
The Jeffersonian Congress not only repealed the [hated] Judiciary Act of 1801, but, on April 23, 1802, it also passed a law proroguing [postponing] the Supreme Court for 14 months to ensure that before it returned to session, the Judiciary Act would be fully repealed.
New England threatens to Secede
This is when the fake Federalists of the New England states threatened to secede from the United States. But they were let down by the Supreme Court, which, when it returned, accepted the repeals constitutionality.
Case Law:
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
are to be read as
"Crimes and Misdemeanors"
Another one of those upside down interpretations of the Constitution.
If the Constitution had wanted judges impeached for simple, everyday crimes and misdemeanors, the ones you and I go to jail for and pay fines for, they would have left off the word "high".
So, we need to know what "high" means, don't we?
One thing is for sure, the Constitution does not want Supreme Court Justices impeached for speeding tickets and unpaid parking tickets -- that is, normal crimes and misdemeanors is not what the Constitution is talking about.
The Case of Samuel Chase -- The one, only and last SCOTUS to ever be impeached
Like many SCOTUS justices, Samuel Chase starts off as a strong federalist in the real sense of the word, and ends his career as a strong federalist in the nationalist sense of the word.
The betrayal eventually lead to his impeachment, especially since Samuel Chase gave so many good reasons to do so.
Republicans accused Chase, an ardent Federalist, of abusing his office in the interest of partisan politics.
One notorious and illustrative case was the Sedition Act prosecution for James Callender, a journalist who had written scurrilous attacks on President John Adams. ... As Raoul Berger, the greatest of American legal historians, put it, Chase's behavior in the Callender case went against his judicial oath -- which said, in part, "I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me."
Chase was far from impartial. He had "selected the victim, announced his intention to punish him for his 'atrocious and profligate' libel, procured his presentment by the grand jury, refused to excuse jurors who confessed their bias against the accused, at every step identified himself with the prosecution, and [taken] every means to disconcert, discredit, and disable counsel for the defense."
The House of Representatives believed that Chase's behavior warranted his removal from office and impeached him.
-- The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
In other words, Samuel Chase had not only violated the 1st Amendment in prosecuting Callender for exercising his free speech rights, but violated the checks and balances of government by becoming the executive, legislator, judge, jury, and executioner of Callender.
The poster boy for an impeachable judge.
But the Senate would not impeach him.
Why?
His counsel argued that Chase had never committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
Without an indictable criminal offense by Chase, his counsel argued, the Senate could not remover him from office.
The Senate accepted this argument. But the argument is wrong.
-- The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
In the Constitution, the words "crime" and "misdemeanor" do not have the same meaning as "high crimes" and "high misdemeanor".
"High" refers to "high office" and the political crimes which take place in a high office.
In 1757, Sir William Blackstone, the source and authority on the common law with his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote,
"the first and principle [high misdemeanor] is the mal-administration of such high officers, as are in the public trust and employment.
This is usually punished by the method of parliamentary impeachment."
-- The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
A historian of English law has pointed out examples of high misdemeanors to be:
"judges mislead their sovereign by unconstitutional opinions" as well as "attempts to subvert the fundamental laws, and introduce arbitrary power"
-- The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
In other words, high misdemeanors refers to purely political offenses that would never be tried before an ordinary court.
High misdemeanors refers to the political crime of failing to give justice in a courtroom.
A judge cannot be removed for an ordinary crime, but only for a "high" crime.
For in the real world, no one really cares if the judge fails to pay his own parking tickets, but we do care if he decrees torture till death for us not paying our parking tickets.
President Jefferson realized that the Constitutional Checks and Balances of impeachment had become a farce when he said:
"They consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining hold on them...A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is solecism, at least in a republican government."
-- Thomas Jefferson
In the end, since disobeying his oath to protect and defend the Constitution is not an "indictable criminal offense", then SCOTUS justices can ignore the Constitution at will.
They do not fear impeachment, in the least.
Case Law:
-- Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) --
Eleventh Amendment
"Asserting State Sovereignty"
The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794 and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court by someone of another state or country.
This amendment was adopted in response to, and in order to overrule, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).
Can there be no greater proof of the assertion of state sovereignty and everyone's desire for it than this?
Congress proposed the Amendment and 13 of the 15 existing States approved. (Only New Jersey and Pennsylvania did not ratify the 11th Amendment.)
The States jealously guarded their immunity from lawsuits by the federal government.
After insisting upon the 10th Amendment, the 11th Amendment would also would prove futile in preventing a tyrannical SCOTUS from developing a diabolical federal government which runs roughshod over the States.
Case Law:
"Our Supreme Court" has become "our King"
With life time appointments and with no fear of impeachment, our judicial system has become the nation's monarchy.
-- Marbury v. Madison (1804) --
Marshall's Federalist SCOTUS
gives itself
Veto Power over
Congress and the President
The Constitution gives the President the power to veto any piece of legislation coming from Congress which he does not want to enforce. Not to be undone, with enough votes, Congress can override the President's veto, and demand that he enforce their new law.
The Constitution gives the Judiciary the power to hear cases involving the breaking of laws Congress passed and the President signed into law. But it specifically does not give the judiciary the power to veto Congressional legislation it does not favor.
The judiciary is not the only branch of government required to follow the Constitution. The President and Congress are just as required to preserve and defend it.
The "checks and balances" power to correct the President or Congress from violating the Constitution is given to the people at election time.
As their "checks and balances", one can see that the judiciary may "refuse" to hear a case based on any unconstitutional law; however, the Constitution does not give the Judiciary the power to veto any law.
Judges are tightly constrained by the Bill of Rights
Please note that the Constitution does not give the Judiciary power to even be the final judge of the law being broken in a particular case.
The jury decides the final outcome.
Judges are not even allowed to decide the specific case in front of them, let alone the fundamental law the crime is based upon.
You tell me if a judge so mistrusted by the ratifiers of the Constitution, as to be so tied down by laws on their powers, would believe that these same judges could invalidate any law they pleased to?
The ratifiers of the Constitution knew that giving power to the legal class, trained in law, was like letting the fox guard the hen-house.
The 4th Amendment
- A judge cannot allow evidence in a trial from an unreasonable search
- A judge cannot allow evidence in a trial from an unreasonable seizure
- A judge cannot issue a search warrant unless he is given probable cause supported by oath or affirmation
- A judge cannot issue a search warrant unless the warrant restricts the search to the location described in the probable cause
- A judge cannot issue a search warrant unless the warrant restricts the seizure to the persons or things described in the probable cause
The 5th Amendment
- A judge cannot hear a case unless a Grand Jury of our peers decides to allow it.
- A judge cannot continue to rehear cases until he finally gets the conviction he wants.
- A judge cannot use evidence he obtained by torture.
- A judge cannot arbitrarily decide on punishment, but must follow laws set down by Congress.
- A judge cannot allow private property to be taken without just compensation
The 6th Amendment
- A judge cannot decide the guilt or innocence of the accused in criminal cases, that is for the citizen jury
- A judge cannot delay a trial, keeping a man in prison forever
- A judge cannot allow a partial jury he likes to decide the case
- A judge cannot change the venue to another State or district where it would be harder for the accused to win
- A judge cannot withhold the nature and cause of his accusation
- A judge cannot prevent an accused from having witnesses in his behalf
- A judge cannot prevent an accused of having a lawyer to defend him
The 7th Amendment
- A judge cannot decide the guilt or innocence of the accused in civil cases, that is for the citizen jury
- A judge cannot decide a case that has already been decided in another court
- A judge cannot try a civil case using any rules other than the rules of the common law
The 8th Amendment
- A judge cannot demand excessive bail
- A judge cannot impose an excessive fine
- A judge cannot impose a cruel punishment
- A judge cannot impose an unusual punishment
* Fourth Amendment -- Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
* Fifth Amendment -- due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
* Sixth Amendment -- Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
* Seventh Amendment -- Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
* Eighth Amendment -- Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison gave themselves a veto over any law it deemed unconstitutional.
At first, the SCOTUS limited itself to declaring unconstitutional laws invalid.
Later, it would refuse to declare unconstitutional laws it liked to be unconstitutional and it would "legislate" a few unconstitutional laws of its own into existance without the help of Congress.
-- Fletcher v. Peck (1820) --
Marshall's Federalist SCOTUS
gives itself
Veto Power over
State Legislatures
The entire Georgia Legislature, save one, was bribed by a land developer to grant it a huge amount of land. The legislators were thrown out in the next election and invalidated the "contract" between the bribed representatives and the Yazoo Scandal swindlers.
Using the "contracts clause", the SCOTUS struck down the State law repealing the "contract".
In doing so, they made two major blunders.
- In the common law, contracts have no validity if done under fraud
- The "Checks and Balances" of illegal State action proved effective -- the evil legislatures were removed at election time.
In other words, the contract was invalid and the fix was already in place. The SCOTUS had no case to give them authority.
Yet they sided with the innocents who had bought illegal land from the land swindler and declared the new law unconstitutional.
The Constitutional Convention discussed and then rejected giving Congress the power to veto State laws.
Common sense then dictates that the ratifiers would also have rejected giving the SCOTUS the power to veto State laws.
In future years, the SCOTUS would not just veto State laws, they would become super-legislators and super-executives over States.
-- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) --
Marshall's Federalist SCOTUS
gives itself
Veto Power over
State Supreme Courts
The State of Virginia confiscated the property of Loyalists during the Revolutionary War and their law remained in effect after the war.
A U.S. treaty with Great Britain after the war protected the property of Loyalists.
It would not take too much imagination to conclude which side the SCOTUS ruled -- treaties over State laws.
Originally, the Federal government was to have limited power
The Constitutional Convention:
- Rejected the notion that Congress could veto State laws it deemed unconstitutional (Madison)
- Rejected the notion that the President would appoint all State governors. (Hamilton)
- Rejected the notion that the President would appoint all State Senators. (Hamilton)
- Rejected the notion that the State members of the House would appoint their State Senators (Madison)
- Rejected the notion that "Congress may legislate as it will", but defined a narrow limited federal power instead (Madison)
- Rejected the notion that "Congress may legislate in any area to which it considers the States incompetent", but instead, defines where the federal government is competent, as in foreign affairs and trade (Madison)
- Rejected the notion that the federal courts could hear all cases "affecting the national peace and harmony", but limited the federal courts to limited federal issues (Madison/Hamilton)
- Rejected the notion that the States had to provide "equal right of conscience" (Madison)
- Rejected the notion that the States had to protect "the freedom of the press" (Madison)
- Rejected the notion that the States had to provide for "trial by jury in criminal cases" (Madison)
- Rejected the notion that the Navy could be empowered to enforce States to comply with federal commands (Madison)
Strange, given all the above, that the Ratifiers of the Constitution would have wanted this:
- A country ran by federal judges who had never ran for an election
- A country ran by federal judges appointed for life
- A country ran by federal judges with no "checks and balances" placed upon their power (Impeachment never used)
- A country ran by federal judges from a small, centralized, privileged, country-club set of lawyer-judges
Does this sound like the government the Ratifiers of the Constitution wanted America to have?
Or does it sound like the government they had a Revolutionary War to break away from?
The SCOTUS then in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee placed its authority over the authority of State legislators and State Supreme Courts.
It would not be the last time that the SCOTUS ran afoul of the Constitution.
-- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) --
SCOTUS gives itself
Power
to expand the Fed's limited powers
President James Madison was coming off the War of 1812 heavily in debt. He wanted a Second Bank of the United States to be established.
Many felt that the Federal government was not given any authority to create a central bank.
Maryland in particular made a law all but outlawing a branch bank of the Second Bank of the United States to operate within Maryland.
When the Maryland branch manager of the 2nd Bank of the United States, James William McCulloch, refused to comply with Maryland's law, then Maryland sued in federal court.
Guess who won in the courts of the Federal government? -- Yes indeed, the Feds won.
Overturned in this case was
- The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention
- The ratification process
- The addition of the 10th Amendment to protect State Sovereignty
- The addition of the 11th Amendment resolving to keep State Sovereignty
- The political defeat and near destruction of the Federalist Party at the polls.
- The agreement to live under a limited Federal Government
All this was undone by the Marshall Court.
Thomas Jefferson was not at all pleased:
The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederated republic.
"They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone."
--Thomas Jefferson
Final
Conclusion
The enactment of the 17th Amendment, where the States lost their veto power in the Senate, their "checks and balances", greatly accelerated the centralization of federal power in Washington, and is now allowing for the globilization of power in the United Nations.
But it cannot be ignored that, even before the enactment of the 17th Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States believed it had a veto power over the veto power of the State's Senate.
And it was not shy about ruling over State legislatures and State Supreme Courts as well.
In any solution to our problems today, a great priority has to be placed upon reigning in the oligarchial powers of these unelected, unaccountable, dictators for life.
You can read further at Solutions.
Article located at:
http://www.thechristiansolution.com/doc2009/209_FromtheBeginning.html
Last Hope for America
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
of
Church and State
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
of
Church and State
The Christian Solution © First Release: March 15, 2008