When
James Madison left New York for Philadelphia on May 2nd, 1787 he
carried with him not the proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation
which was the mandate of the convention but an entirely new idea for a
constitution that would make the “National” government supreme with the states
nothing but subdivisions of the central government structure. His proposal would
grant the national government veto power over all state laws. Madison’s plan was
totally contrary to the results of the recent war with England which gave
primary power to the states with the central government only allowed the powers
the states saw fit to provide. Madison’s plan called for a consolidated union
that would virtually annihilate the states. The states would only be maintained
as long as they could be “subordinately useful.”
In
opposition to this proposed form of government, New York delegate John Lansing
would most astutely observe that the states would never have consented to select
delegates to attend a convention that would lead to their destruction.
So,
why is this of any importance? Simply because the Nationalist form of government
which would allow a strong central government to act directly on the people,
ironically what our government of today has become, was completely rejected by
the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Unfortunately
for Liberty, the form of government rejected at the convention is now seen as
supreme by the overwhelming majority of people in office; people running for
office; all judges regardless of position in government; all of the bureaucrats
and a huge majority of people in this country.
So-called
“conservative” elected officials have been heard to state “no law is
unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.” A “conservative” candidate
for US Senate was recently heard to remark that whatever the US Supreme Court
rules must be considered as gospel. This is a complete repudiation of the rights
of states to determine what is best for their own citizens and therefore a
repudiation of the principles of Jefferson and an advocacy of the principles
found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf which revolved around destruction of the individual
states.
On
the subject of the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what is and what is
not constitutional, Jefferson stated the following:
“…(T)he
opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are
constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of
action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make
the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
Giving
the Supreme Court the power to judge what is and what is not constitutional, not
only the federal level but also on the state level, destroys the very intent of
the 9th and 10th Amendments. In other words, the Supreme
Court Justices and other lesser federal judges have set about to amend our
Constitution by judicial fiat.
On
this subject George Mason would state the following at the Virginia State
Ratifying Convention:
“If
the laws and constitution of the general government, as expressly said, be
paramount to those of any state, are not those rights with which we were afraid
to trust our own citizens annulled and given up to the general government? . . .
If they are not given up, where are they secured?
I
do not believe the subject can be any clearer that when the “national”
government supersedes those of the states, Liberty soon becomes first endangered
and finally extinct.
So,
how is this connected to Adolf Hitler you ask? The answer can be found on page
572 of Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf. While lamenting that Bismarck
had not gone far enough in destroying state’s rights in Germany, Hitler
said:
"And
so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail
the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of
general material considerations but from ideal considerations as well…basic for
us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . .
."
Are
you beginning to see a pattern here? James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay
and the other nationalists among our founders believed that to have an
omnipotent central government, the power of the individual states must be
eliminated. Accomplishing this would lead to the destruction of the Declaration
of Independence concept of “consent of the governed,” a concept vital to the
existence of Liberty and Natural Rights.
Abraham
Lincoln initiated a war to destroy the concepts of State’s Rights and consent of
the governed, killing over 800,000 Americans and replacing the government based
on consent with a strong central government ruled by a cabal unrestrained with
the limits of a constitution.
Lincoln
was praised by Karl Marx for his accomplishments and Adolf Hitler used Lincoln’s
premise for an omnipotent central government to establish his National Socialist
empire that led to the deaths of millions; some in furnaces and by firing squad
to millions more on the battlefields of WWII.
The
candidates, politicians and all members of the species Ignoramus
Americanus who claim that decrees of the Supreme Court are infallible and
constitute immutable law adhere to the beliefs of some of the most evil,
murderous tyrants in history and should be treated as the enemies to Liberty
that they are.
Contrast
please the diametrically opposed concepts of Adolf Hitler and Thomas
Jefferson.
“National
Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its
principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous
federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as
the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does
the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of
our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual
federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It
must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore,
imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a
development we have rejected.” ~Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p.
578
“That
the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on
the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by
a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and
of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special
purposes—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each
State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and
that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are
unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded
as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the
other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the
exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since
that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of
its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no
common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of
infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” ~Thomas
Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution, 10 November 1798
As
you read the two above quotes you must ask yourself: “Which of the two most
closely resembles the government we have today, supported by candidates and
politicians who claim the federal government and its attendant bureaucracies and
decrees of the US Supreme Court to be gospel?”
Would
it suffice to say that as the power of the individual states and the people are
concerned, so goes Freedom and Liberty?
Who
do you choose; Jefferson or Hitler?
IN
RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY
No comments:
Post a Comment