AtlasShruggedCelebrationDay
2013-May-23 07:32:41 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
Ouray Webcam link....: http://ouraycam.com/
Atlas Shrugged Trailer.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM&feature=player_embedded
The John Galt Theme..: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2mULGktiw&feature=related


Ayn Rand house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright (not built).

Sorted Index to **Narragansett **Constitution
   

The Next Annual get-together in Ouray, Colorado is scheduled for Monday, 2013-Sep-02 at noon in the Patio on the North Side of the Beaumont Hotel. Details HERE

Donations? Hell, NO!*

Because robo-spammers outnumber real people by 20 to 1, you MUST register to post AND your membership MUST be approved.
SEND EMAIL with YOUR comments or a posting to Admin (at) AtlasShruggedCelebrationDay.com to prove that you are NOT an automaton.
Sure. It is a bother. But you only have to do it once to become a member. And you don't have to wade thru the spam.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: [1786-2011] Objections to This Constitution of Government  (Read 7635 times)
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« on: 2009-January-15 05:52:45 PM »

[1786-2011] Objections to This Constitution of Government
http://atlasshruggedcelebrationday.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=64.msg133#msg133

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo  (Original Message) Sent: 6/2/2004 10:56 AM

http://www.williams.edu/resources/chapin/collect/masonobj.html

Objections to This
Constitution of Government


Manuscript written on the verso of the Committee of Style draft of the U.S. Constitution by GEORGE MASON (1725-1792) in the Chapin Library, Williams College:

There is no Declaration of Rights, and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitutions of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no Security. Nor are the People secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common Law.

In the House of Representatives, there is not the Substance, but the Shadow only of Representation; which can never produce proper Information in the Legislature, or inspire Confidence in the People; the Laws will therefore be generally made by men little concern'd in, and unacquainted with their Effects and Consequences.

The Senate have the Power of altering all money Bills, and of originating appropriations of money, & the Sallerys of the Officers of their own Appointment, in Conjunction with the president of the United States; altho' they are not the Representatives of the People, or amenable to them.

These, with their other great Powers (viz: their Power in the Appointment of Ambassadors and all public Officers, in making Treaties, and in trying all Impeachments) their Influence upon & Connection with the supreme Executive from these Causes, their Duration of Office, and their being a constant existing Body, almost continually sitting, joined with their being one compleat Branch of the Legislature will destroy any Ballance in the Government, & enable them to accomplish what Usurpations they please upon the Rights and Liberty of the People.

The Judiciary of the United States is so constructed & extended, as to absorb and destroy the Judiciarys of the several States; thereby rendering Law as tedious intricate and expensive, & Justice as unattainable, by a great Part of the Community, as in England, and enabling the Rich to oppress & ruin the Poor.

The President of the United States has no constitutional Council (a thing unknown in any safe & regular Government) he will therefore be unsupported by proper information and Advice; and will generally be directed by Minions and Favourites. Or he will become a Tool to the Senate -- or a Council of State will grow out of the principal Officers of the great Departments; the worst & most dangerous of all Ingredients for such a Council, in a free country.

From this fatal Defect has arisen the improper Power of the Senate in the appointment of public Officers, and the alarming Dependence & Connection between that Branch of the Legislature and the supreme Executive.

Hence also sprung that unnecessary Officer, the Vice-President; who for want of other Employment, is made President of the Senate; thereby dangerously blending the executive and legislative Powers; besides always giving to some one of the States an unnecessary and unjust pre-eminence over the others.

The President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardons for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, & thereby prevent a Discovery of his own Guilt.

By declaring all Treaties supreme Laws of the Land, the Executive & the Senate have in many Cases, an exclusive Power of ligislation; which might have been avoided by proper Distinctions with respect to Treaties, and requiring the Assent of the House of Representatives, where it cou'd be done, with Safety.

By requiring a Majority to make all commercial & Navigation Laws, the five Southern States (whose Produce & Circumstances are totally different from that of the eight Northern & Eastern States) may be ruined; for such rigid & premature Regulations may be made, as will enable the Merchants of the Northern & Eastern States not only to demand an exorbitant Freight, but to monopolize the Purchase of the Commodities at their own Price, for many Years; to the great Injury of the landed Interest, & Impoverishment of the People; and the Danger is the greater, as the Gain on one Side will be in Proportion to the Loss on the other. Whereas requiring two thirds of the Members present in both Houses wou'd have produced mutual moderation, promoted the general Interest, and removed an insuperable Objection to the adoption of this Government.

Under their own Construction of the general Clause, at the End of the enumerated Powers, the Congress may grant Monopolies in Trade & Commerce, constitute new Crimes, inflict unusual and severe Punishments, & extend their Powers as far as they shall think proper; so that the state Legislatures have no Security for their Powers now presumed to remain to them, or the People for their Rights.

There is no Declaration of any kind, for preserving the Liberty of the Press, or the Tryal by Jury in Civil Causes; nor against the Danger of standing Armys in time of Peace.

The State Legislatures are restrained from laying Import Duties on their own Produce.

Both the general Legislature* and the State Legislatures are expressly prohibited making ex post facto Laws: tho' there never was, nor can be a Legislature but must and will make such Laws, when Necessity & the public Safety require them; which will hereafter be a Breach of all the Constitutions in the Union, and afford precedents for other Innovations.

This Government will set out a moderate Aristocracy: it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a Monarchy, or a corrupt tyrannical Aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.

*The general Legislature is restrained from prohibiting the further Importation of Slaves for twenty odd years; tho' such Importations render the United States weaker, more vulnerable, and less capable of Defence.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2001 by the President and Trustees of Williams College
This page was last updated on 29 January 2001
 
« Last Edit: 2012-November-25 10:06:54 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: 2009-January-15 06:00:31 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 6/2/2004 11:39 AM

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/03/10/01/gaddy.htm

The Constitution Is Not The Answer
By Michael Gaddy


For those who truly cherish liberty, it is reality check time. If nothing else, our history should have taught us that, regardless of how much we yearn for the adherence to the Constitution, the true blueprint for freedom is not to be found there.

If the Constitution truly had the built in protections to prevent opportunistic politicians from abusing it, we would not be in the mess we are today. There is a very good reason the Patriot who said, “give me liberty or give me death” refused to sign that document.

The Constitution itself was created when members of the ruling elite found that the Articles of Confederation did not give them the power of coercion needed to dictate their wishes to the masses.

Farmers, many of whom had fought in the war of Independence from England, rebelled at having to pay exorbitant taxes and face debtors prison if they could not. Many, including George Washington himself, saw that Shays’s rebellion would require a stronger central government and a standing army to enforce its dictates.

Contrary to those who linked their fortunes with a strong central government, Thomas Jefferson expressed his thoughts on Shays Rebellion to James Madison in a letter on January 17th 1787. “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…it is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

Several members of the ruling elite in Massachusetts had to ante up their own resources to provide the force/troops necessary to put down the rebellion of those who saw taxation as slavery. This inspired those who adore government and its trappings to move to insure government would use the resources/lives of its citizens to enforce the will of the ruling elite in the future.

Leonard L. Richards, a Professor of History at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, says Shays's Rebellion, though seemingly a local affair, was the revolution that gave rise to modern American democracy. This has proven to be a true statement, as this was the beginning of the move that took us from a constitutional republic, to that of a democracy.

All of the state apologists historians (is there any other kind now?) dote on "democracy" and forget that Jefferson called democracy “mob rule.” George P. Fletcher of Columbia Law School, and journalist Garry Wills, praises Abraham Lincoln for severely perverting the Constitution in order to bring us the wonderful democracy we enjoy today.

With the power to coerce firmly in hand, granted to them by the new Constitution, the government had the force necessary to put down another tax revolt just a few short years later when the citizens rebelled against the tax on whiskey. (Whiskey Rebellion)

This tax, ostensibly to pay for a war against the native people (Indians), who were fighting against the advancement into their lands, was actually a grand scheme by Alexander Hamilton and his rich cronies to increase their financial holdings. Hamilton was pushing and politicking all he met for his Assumption act. This act ensured that the federal government would assume the debt incurred by the states during the revolution. Although this sounds like a wonderful plan, the actions of Hamilton and his rich cronies, most of who were serving in politics, must be examined.

When Hamilton’s plan was first announced, the price of the script that had been issued as payment for war debts began to rise in value. C.M Ewing wrote of this in his work of 1930 on the Whiskey Rebellion.

“…Many were ignorant of this advance, especially in the more remote sections, taking advantage of this situation, the money bags of the east, many of whom were members of Congress, sent agents into every state, town and country neighborhood to buy up this paper before the people gained knowledge of its value. That none should escape their slimy grasp, couriers and relay horses were used to reach the most isolated sections, thereby making complete the greatest financial atrocity in our national history. The price they paid was five, and even so low as two shillings in the pound. Immense sums were thus filched from the poor and ignorant. The rich were made richer and the poor made poorer.”

The federalists saw the tax on whiskey as the way to bring 21 million dollars to the coffers of the federal government, which could then be used to buy back this script at face value from their cronies.

Examining the ideals of Alexander Hamilton, a leading advocate of a strong central government, (Federalist) one can find the origins for what is basically the belief that this country should be run by an aristocracy. By early 1789, Hamilton was the treasurer of the U.S. and continually used all his influence to work toward an aristocracy. According to Hamilton, only the "well bred and rich" as he expressed it, were to be recognized in governmental circles. "Lower" people, as he called them, were to have little or no part in government and would be held in check by "coercion of laws and coercion of arms". Looking at our government today one must admit the desires of Hamilton have been met.

Farmers and those who had chosen to settle in the western portions of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina (Hamilton’s lower people) were of an independent nature and did not wish to have their lives dictated to and controlled by those in power in the east. They felt those in power were too far removed from and had no idea or concern about their lives, just their money. Money used not for the benefit of the citizens but money used to enrich the ruling elite.

Tax collectors in these areas were often tarred and feathered when they tried to open tax offices.

The aristocrats in the east decided on another course of action. They allowed themselves, and others of their persuasion, to actually purchase the land the farmers had homesteaded and lived on for years. In addition, Hamilton, without the consent of congress, started forcing those reluctant to pay the state imposed taxes to come all the way back east for trial. This brought on a hardship many of them could not endure, as they were needed to keep their crops and animals in good condition and to defend their homes against raids by Indians. A great majority just refused.

A member of the presidential commission looking into the matter, a General William Irvine, sent a note to Washington after examining the facts in western Pennsylvania in which he stated "I do not mean now either to condemn or justify the proceedings here, but I may safely venture to say, that people on the west of the mountains labor under hardships, if not grievances that are not known, or at least not understood, in other parts of the United States, in more instances than the excise; but in this particular it can be demonstrated that they labor under particular hardships, for instance, carrying a man to Philadelphia or York to be tried for crimes, real or supposed, or on litigations respecting property, perhaps under the value or forty shillings: THIS IS INTOLERABLE."

Hamilton was now able to use his position and his close association with George Washington to implement a show of force against those who sought their own determination and wanted nothing to do with paying hard earned money to a government they did not need. In August 1794, George Washington began mobilizing forces to move into the areas of dispute and force the recalcitrant to adhere to federal policies.

Ironically, the leader of these forces was General “Lighthorse” Harry Lee, whose son Robert E., would some 86 years later, be the commander of forces that sought to disassociate themselves from a government they saw as tyrannical -- in that it cared more for the collection of revenues than it did liberty, freedom and self government.

Washington, Hamilton and the aristocrats were trying to replicate the main features of the British colonial and mercantile system from which they had just freed themselves.

This history reveals that the true patriots of the time were totally correct in their failure to support the Constitution. George Mason plainly stated these positions in his “Objections to this Constitution of Government” http://www.williams.edu/resources/chapin/collect/masonobj.html . He and Patrick Henry knew all too well that when the individual states became subservient to the behemoth that would be central government, the hard fought for liberty would cease to exist.

Patrick Henry refused to attend the Convention in Philadelphia where the Articles of Confederation were to be revised, stating he “smelt a rat.” It was at this convention the Articles were abandoned in favor of a Constitution that had at its core a strong central government. Henry mustered all of his oratorical skill in an attempt to defeat the proposed Constitution.

In June of 1788, Virginia held her ratification meeting at Richmond. Mason and Henry were both in attendance. 8 of the required 9 states needed to ratify the Constitution had already voted in favor of the document. Patrick Henry was quick to admonish those in attendance "You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."

Henry was most concerned with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. He pointed to the absurdity of having bills "to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power" without a similar guarantee against the power of the federal government. By doing so you "arm yourselves against the weak and defenseless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful."

Mason supported Henry's thoughts in stating that "the question then will be, whether a consolidated government can preserve the freedom and secure the rights of the people." Mason challenged his fellow Virginians to do what the Philadelphia Convention had refused to do--to create a new government if and only if the rights of the people were guaranteed. Henry prophetically added that the "tyranny of Philadelphia may be like the tyranny of George III."

James Madison, in an attempt to counter the challenges of Henry and Mason, stated that "the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people." Eighty-five years later, one Abraham Lincoln would prove this statement to be totally false.

Those who love power and its trappings and are willing to kill as many as necessary to have that power, will never allow themselves to be restrained by the Constitution.

Mason and Henry, through their efforts, were able to obtain a “Bill of Rights” added to the Constitution. Our greatest problem is: the Constitution has allowed those in government to be the arbiters of these “rights.” This is analogous to allowing the Mafia to amend criminal law.

For those of us who seek freedom and liberty, we must come to the realization that our Constitution will never allow us those most cherished rights. It was never designed for that purpose.
 
« Last Edit: 2009-January-15 06:42:58 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: 2009-January-15 06:37:31 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 8/2/2004 2:37 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo74.html

Constitutional Futility
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo


The feature article of the June 2004 issue of "The Insider," published by The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., is one of dozens of articles written over the past twenty years or so by Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute urging Americans to educate themselves on how the Constitution supposedly limits government. Cato Institute staffers are known for carrying little pocket-sized copies of the Constitution around with them, presumably so that they will never miss a chance to prove to anyone who will listen that there is indeed a way of limiting government: enforce the Constitution.

But this whole enterprise of preaching about the Constitution, as conservatives and libertarians have been doing since at least the 1930s, is utterly futile. It has had no effect whatsoever, yet Cato, Heritage, and many other institutions continue to churn out essentially the same old arguments about how the Constitution can limit government.

The reason all these efforts are useless is that those who partake in them invariably ignore any serious discussion of how constitutional restrictions on government can be seriously enforced. They typically implore the public to educate itself, as though politicians will then magically transform into dutiful tribunes of the people, take their advice, and shut down most of the government. Or they believe in the pie-in-the-sky notion that the federal judiciary could somehow be reeducated and turned into modern-day Thomas Jeffersons, writing such things in their judicial decisions as "that government is best which governs least."

This is all extraordinarily naïve. The government has had an iron grip on the American educational system for generations, and it's not about to ease up on that grip by teaching American school children about the virtues of limited government. This is true of all levels of education, including – and especially – the law schools. Furthermore, elementary public choice theory, which Cato Institute scholars should be aware of, suggests that this crusade will inevitably fail. The reason is straightforward: The parties who are interested in limited constitutional government are widely dispersed and not very well organized politically (i.e., the general public); whereas the advocates of ever-expanding legal plunder (the state itself, and all of its special-interest groups) tend to be much more concentrated and well organized. Therefore, it is the nature of politics that the enemies of constitutional limitations on government will win out, as in fact they have in the U.S. for well over a century.

The Constitutionalists’ Fatal Conceit

The fatal flaw in the thinking of the libertarian/conservative constitutionalists stems from their unawareness or willful ignorance of how the founders themselves believed the Constitution could be enforced: by the citizens of the free, independent, and sovereign states, not the federal judiciary. The Constitution not only sought to limit government with its "enumerated powers," something that Pilon emphasizes, or the system of checks and balances, but also with the much more important doctrine of divided sovereignty. That is, the citizens of the states, as well as all other organs of government, were to have an equal voice in constitutional matters. As political philosopher Gottfried Dietze explained in America’s Political Dilemma: From Limited to Unlimited Democracy (p. 67), "Federalism, instituted to enable the federal government to check oppressions by the governments of the states, and vice versa, appears to be a supreme principle of the Constitution (emphasis added).

That is, the central government was given certain abilities to police attempted infringements upon liberties – especially economic liberties – of the states, but at the same time the Tenth Amendment reserved to the states, respectively, and the people, the right to police or veto the despotic and unconstitutional usurpations of the central government. States’ rights, in other words, was the key to enforcing the constitutional limitations on the central state. If the people were to be sovereign over their central government, it was to be accomplished as members of political communities organized at the state and local levels.

But the system of dual sovereignty was all but destroyed by the War to Prevent Southern Independence. As Dietze further observed (p. 73): "(B)efore the Civil War . . . the nature of American federalism was still a subject of debate. The outcome of the Civil War ended that debate. The Nationalists emerged as victors. National power increased as the twentieth century approached [along with] the disappearance of states’ rights." That period of history, Dietze concluded, was "characterized by an increasing interference with economic freedom" and "constitutes a constitutional revolution that can well be termed a reversal of the revolution of 1787."

The Quixote-like libertarian constitutionalists are wasting their time because they fail to acknowledge the essential truth about Abraham Lincoln’s war: It overthrew the Constitution of 1789 by destroying the system of dual sovereignty and, in so doing, ended any hope that the citizens would remain sovereign over their own government. Indeed, early twentieth century statists and imperialists like Woodrow Wilson celebrated this fact. As Wilson approvingly wrote in his book, Constitutional Government in the United States (Transactions Publishers Reprint, p. 178), "The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers." Of course, Thomas Jefferson and other founders always understood that if the day were ever to come when the federal government would become the final judge of the limits of its own powers, then it would eventually decide that there were, in fact, no limits to its powers. That day has long since arrived.

The Forgotten Jeffersonian Tradition

Perhaps the clearest statement of the Jeffersonian, states’ rights tradition of dual sovereignty as a defense of freedom is Jefferson’s own Kentucky Resolve of 1798 (See William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy, Independent Institute, 2003). In response to the Adams administration’s alien and sedition acts, the latter of which made it essentially illegal to criticize the central government, Jefferson wrote:

  • Resolved, 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 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 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.

First of all, note that Jefferson referred to the "United States" in the plural, signifying the fact that the free, independent, and sovereign states were part of a compact of states and not a part of one consolidated empire ("The United States," singular), as they are today.

In all cases of a compact where there is no common judge, such as with the Constitution, Jefferson argued that each party has an equal right to judge for itself the constitutionality of federal government actions. James Madison concurred in the Virginia Resolve of 1798, writing that if the citizens of a state decided that the central government enacted a "dangerous exercise of powers," then the citizens "were duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil . . ."

Thanks to governmental control of education, the nationalists have so dominated American political discourse that today most Americans have only been exposed to the New England version of American history. Consequently, they are completely unaware of the Jeffersonian states’ rights philosophy and tradition. This philosophy has been so severely censored that William J. Watkins’s 2003 Independent Institute book on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves is the first book to be published on the subject in over 100 years.

The Jeffersonian tradition was carried on in the quarter century after Jefferson’s death most forcefully by John C. Calhoun, who Murray Rothbard characterized as one of America’s greatest political philosophers. Unfortunately, Calhoun has been marginalized and defamed by the nationalists, who consider themselves to be the gatekeepers of America’s Official History. Nevertheless, Calhoun’s book, A Disquisition on Government, is one of the most insightful works in all of American history, filled with ingenious insights about the nature of democratic politics and forecasts that have all proven to be amazingly accurate.

A written Constitution is a good thing, argued Calhoun, but those who favor enforcing it "would be overpowered" eventually, by the "party of government." "At first they might command some respect, and do something to stay the encroachment; but they would, in the progress of the contest, be regarded as mere abstractionists; and, indeed, deservedly, if they should indulge in the folly of supposing that the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution . . . . The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution." (See Ross M. Lence, Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, Liberty Fund, 1992, p. 27).

Calhoun further forecast that all of the constitutional restrictions on government "would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers." This has certainly come true, despite all the efforts of "abstractionists" like Roger Pilon and several generations of similarly well-meaning constitutionalists. This is why Calhoun, like Jefferson, believed it was absolutely essential for the citizens of the states to possess "this negative power – the power of preventing or arresting the action of the government – be it called by what term it may – veto, interposition, nullification, check, or balance of power . . ." It is precisely such negative power, wrote Calhoun, that "forms the constitution" (p. 28). It is the very essence of constitutional liberty. This power, however, was destroyed in 1865.

The Jeffersonian Constitution

The Jeffersonian view of the Constitution prevailed until it was overthrown by force of arms in 1861–1865. The best presentation of this view is St. George Tucker’s book, View of the Constitution of the United States. Tucker was a professor of law at William and Mary College, fought in the Revolution, became a successful lawyer afterward, adopted a young John Randolph whose mother had been widowed, and authored one of the first plans for the abolition of slavery in Virginia (in 1796).

Tucker warned that any confederacy would become a despotism if the central government ever ceased being merely the agent of the states that created it and delegated certain enumerated powers to it. "The union of the SOVEREIGNTY of a state with the government," he wrote, "constitutes a state of USURPATION and absolute TYRANNY, over the PEOPLE" (p. 24). Moreover, if the "unlimited authority" of the central state were ever to extend so far as to "change the constitution itself, the government, whatever be its form, is absolute and despotic . . ." (p. 27). This, too, has occurred, via "judicial activism" in the post-1865 era.

The system of checks and balances is not what protects the people from tyranny, Tucker explained. What did was "the nature and extent of those powers which the people have reserved to themselves as the Sovereign." (p. 28). That is, it all depends on states’ rights. Moreover, the "doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind" (p. 112). Having been created by the citizens of the states, a free government must by bound to the Constitution "by its creators, the several states in the union, and the citizens thereof." Otherwise, despotism is the inevitable result.

Tucker’s contemporary, Virginia Senator John Taylor, was also a Jeffersonian who mocked the idea that the founders would ever have trusted the Supreme Court to be the sole judge of constitutionality (and the limits of government). "Being an essential principle for preserving liberty," he wrote in Tyranny Unmasked (p. 198), the Constitution "never could have designed to destroy it, by investing five or six men, installed for life, with a power of regulating the constitutional rights of all political departments."

Until 1865, virtually every state of the union invoked the Jeffersonian states’ rights tradition in defense of liberty and against encroachments on liberty by the central government. The New England states "nullified" President James Madison’s trade embargo (1807); they also invoked Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve in refusing to participate in the War of 1812; the New England Federalists plotted to secede for over a decade after Jefferson’s election to the presidency in 1800, culminating with the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814; Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Connecticut, South Carolina, New York and New Hampshire all invoked the Kentucky Resolve to oppose the existence of the Bank of the United States within their borders; some New England states nullified the Fugitive Slave Act by refusing to enforce it; and South Carolina famously nullified the infamous 1828 Tariff of Abominations. The rights of nullification and secession, which were accepted as inalienable rights of the citizens of all the states, ceased to exist after 1865.
 
The Classical Liberal States’ Rights Tradition

Unlike Cato Institute scholars, Liberty magazine, Reason magazine, and most other contemporary "libertarian" organizations and publications (the Mises Institute and Independent Institute being the major exceptions), the last generation of classical liberals were cognizant of the importance of the great Jeffersonian states’ rights tradition to the preservation of liberty and prosperity. In The Income Tax: Root of All Evil (p. 83) Frank Chodorov wrote that

  • The real obstacle [to tyranny] is the psychological resistance to centralization that the States’ rights tradition fosters. The citizen of divided allegiance cannot be reduced to subservience; if he is in the habit of serving two political gods he cannot be dominated by either one. . . . No political authority ever achieved absolutism until the people were deprived of a choice of loyalties.

Stalin, Mussolini, and Lenin liquidated any and all competing authorities, including the sovereign states of their respective countries, before gaining totalitarian power, Chodorov wrote.

To Chodorov, dual sovereignty or "divided authority" was "the bulwark of freedom" for "Freedom is the absence of restraint. Government cannot give freedom, it can only take it away. The more power the government exercises the less freedom will the people enjoy. And when government has a monopoly of power the people have not freedom. That is the definition of absolutism – monopoly of power." This lesson seems lost on most of today’s libertarian constitutionalists, with their handy dandy pocket constitutions and no apparent knowledge at all of the real American liberal tradition, the Jeffersonian states’ rights tradition.

Ludwig von Mises is another classical liberal of the last generation who understood the importance of the Jeffersonian philosophy and was not fooled by nationalist propaganda. Commenting on the effects of interventionism that was spawned in the United States in the post-1865 era, and in Switzerland during the same period, Mises wrote in his book, Omnipotent Government (p. 268) of how

  • New powers accrued not to the member states but to the federal government. Every step toward more government interference and toward more planning means at the same time an expansion of the jurisdiction of the central government. Washington and Berne were once the seats of the federal governments; today they are capitals in the true sense of the word, and the states and the cantons are virtually reduced to the status of provinces. It is a very significant fact that the adversaries of the trend toward more government control describe their opposition as a fight against Washington and against Berne, i.e., against centralization. It is conceived as a contest of state’s rights versus the central power (emphasis added).

To Mises, the whole fight against government control was fundamentally a fight against consolidated or monopoly government and in favor of decentralization and states’ rights. This was also a theme of F.A. Hayek’s work, especially The Road to Serfdom, and of Felix Morley’s classic, Freedom and Federalism. "Socialism and federalism are necessarily political opposites," Morely wrote, "because the former demands that centralized concentration of power which the latter by definition denies" (pp. 3–4).

A young twenty-three-year-old Murray Rothbard also expressed the importance of states’ rights in the fight for a free society in a May 11, 1949 letter to the headquarters of the States Rights Party in Jackson, Mississippi. "Although a New Yorker born and bred," Rothbard wrote, "I was a staunch supporter of the Thurmond movement (i.e., the Strom Thurmond for President movement). But the problem with the Thurmond movement, said Rothbard, was that it was too narrow, focusing primarily on the "Civil Tyranny Program," which is how he described impending "civil rights" legislation. The "Civil Tyranny" program should be opposed as an affront to property rights and freedom of association, said the young Rothbard, but what was really needed was a national, as opposed to a merely regional, states’ rights party to fight the "power hungry Washington bureaucracy." Jefferson would have wholeheartedly agreed.

The great classical liberal historian of liberty, Lord Acton, was another important historical figure who was not duped by nationalist rhetoric. In a November 4, 1866 letter to General Robert E. Lee Lord Acton wrote that

  • I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolution of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy . . . . Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (J. Rufus Fears, Selected Writings of Lord Acton, vol. 1, Essays in the History of Liberty, p. 363).

The Enemies of States’ Rights

Despots and tyrants have always been the enemies of states’ rights, as have all manner of power-hungry politicians and their intellectual supporters, such as modern-day neoconservatives, especially the nationalistic warmongers at the Claremont Institute. "9/11 proves more than ever that we need a strong federal government," Harry Jaffa declared during my May 2002 debate with him at the Independent Institute, apparently oblivious to the fact that it was the failure of our "strong federal government" that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.

Then there are the weak-willed or cowardly academics, who are intimidated by the statists’ tactic of falsely identifying states’ rights with racism or slavery as a means of censoring all discussion of it. These are people who are much more concerned with being "accepted" by the establishment than with discovering historical truths or defending the free society.

In case there is any doubt about the love/hate relationship that despots and tyrants have with regard to states’ rights, consider Adolf Hitler’s writings in Mein Kampf (Houghton-Mifflin 1998 edition). Hitler mocked the "so-called sovereign states" of Germany and condemned their "impotence" and "fragmentation." He lavishly praised Otto von Bismarck for all but abolishing states’ rights in Germany, which was supposedly a victory in the "struggle between federalism and centralization . . ." (p. 565). The abolition of states’ rights, Hitler correctly noted, was essential for the establishment of "a powerful national Reich" (p. 572).

To make his case against states’ rights in Mein Kampf Hitler quite logically turned to Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address for intellectual ammunition. "The individual states of the American Union," Hitler wrote, "could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of the so-called states" (p. 566).

This is exactly the false theory of the American founding that Lincoln invented in his first inaugural address, where he said:

  • The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured . . . by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was, ‘to form a more perfect Union.’

This statement is a-historical as well as logically absurd. It is not possible for the union of two things to be older than either of the things it is a union of. That would be like saying a marriage (marital union) can be older than either spouse. Besides that, it was the citizens of the free, independent and sovereign states who adopted the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, not "the whole people" of the union. Lincoln was a master of legalistic double talk, and this was one of his most "masterful" passages. It is little wonder that, some sixty years later, Adolf Hitler would find it so appealing.

In his 1962 book, Patriotic Gore (pp. xvi–xvii), the literary critic Edmund Wilson noted that Lincoln had much in common with two other "uncompromising dictators" of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Lenin and Bismarck.

  • (I)f we would grasp the significance of the Civil War in relation to the history of our time, we should consider Abraham Lincoln in connection with the other leaders who have been engaged in similar tasks. The chief of these leaders have been Bismarck and Lenin. They with Lincoln have presided over the unifications of the three great new modern powers . . . . Each established a strong central government over hitherto loosely coordinated peoples. Lincoln kept the Union together by subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin . . . began the work of binding Russia . . . in a tight bureaucratic net.

Each of these men, wrote Wilson, was an uncompromising dictator while in office who was succeeded by newly-formed government bureaucracies that became so powerful that "all the bad potentialities of the policies [they] had initiated were realized, after [their] removal, in the most undesirable ways"(pp. xviii–xix).

The death of the rights of secession and nullification was achieved in 1865, and the final nails were pounded into the Jeffersonian, states’ rights coffin in 1913, with the adoption of the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and the Seventeenth Amendment. The income tax declared, essentially, that all earned income is the property of the state, and the state will decide how much income working Americans may keep for themselves by determining the rates of taxation.

The Fed soon became an enormous and menacing tool of political control based in Washington, D.C., with the board of governors. The Seventeenth Amendment, which established the popular election of senators, relieved U.S. senators from the obligations they once had to vote only for legislation that was generally in the interest of the citizens of their states, since they were appointed by state legislatures. After 1913, they were "obligated’ mostly to whomever could give them the biggest campaign contributions.

If there is any lesson to be learned here, it is that constitutional liberty – in America or anywhere else – is an empty slogan unless the people possess the rights of secession and nullification. This is how the founders intended the people to be sovereign over their government. Until these powers are restored – and the Fed, the income tax, and the Seventeenth Amendment abolished – Americans have no hope of ever returning to a regime of constitutional liberty.


July 21, 2004

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail TDilo@aol.com] is the author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, (Three Rivers Press/Random House). His latest book is How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold Story of Our Country’s History, from the Pilgrims to the Present (Crown Forum/Random House, August 2004).

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

Thomas DiLorenzo Archives at LRC

Thomas DiLorenzo Archives at Mises.org
« Last Edit: 2009-January-15 06:44:22 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: 2009-January-15 06:46:36 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 4/11/2005 8:05 PM

I excerpted the following from  http://www.mises.org/story/1790 . It is a brief description of an article at a new symposium from The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (Spring 2005) entitled "Ayn Rand Among the Austrians." I include it here because of the relevance to the "New Constitution" discussion and especially to Objections to this Constitution. 

Dennis


To What Extent Was Rand a Misesian?
by Bettina B. Greaves
[April 11, 2005]

Candice E. Jackson's "Our Unethical Constitution" shows how Rand's reasoning from the thesis that an individual has "one fundamental right:  the right of each person to his own life (406), and Rothbard's ethics which "begins with natural law and places a carefully defined concept of property rights at the center" (409) both "arrive at virtually identical fundamental principles of political ethics. . . . the individual rights ethics." (415)

However, neither Rand nor Rothbard look on the Constitution as a guide to ideal limited government. "The American colonists were more concerned with rule by consent of the public as opposed to [rule by] hereditary monarch, than with substantive limits on government qua government. . . . [T]he Constitution focused little on constraining government qua government or protecting individual rights, and instead frame the issue as a structural choice between many State government loosely confederated, or a truly national government."  (423, 425)  "[T]he lack of articulated political ethical principles to support the mechanics of the Constitution," therefore, "dooms the Constitution to perennial failure as a foundational document for a genuinely free and ethical society."  (427)
 
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: 2009-January-15 06:49:24 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 4/20/2005 10:33 PM

A republic which prohibits Congress from making any law to establish religion, but provides no standing for individuals who object to bring suit or have recourse, is not a republic which actually limits government. With unlimited government comes unlimited difficulty.

Without any teeth in the constitution to punish traitors and scum who violate its terms in spite of their oaths of office, the further descent into democracy and tyranny should be swift, violent, and horrifying.

Daniel Shays was right to rebel, as were the Western farmers of the Whiskey Rebellion. The bloodshed of the War for Southern Independence, and the excesses of intervention in the 20th Century permanently stain the memory of Alexander Hamilton and the men who foisted the counter-revolutionary constitution on the victors of the American Revolution.

Jim Davidson, 2005-Mar-21, The Indomitus Report, Vol 2, #11

Note: Prior to Lincoln, secession was considered the final and ultimate way in which to insure compliance with Constitutional limits. Since Lincoln's brutal forced union, there is very little serious talk about secession.

Dennis
 
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: 2009-January-15 06:55:21 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 7/3/2006 12:46 PM

A Personal Note, copied from Membership Rules:
 
The Letters of Ayn Rand, The Later Years (1960-1981) page 626   May 2, 1964

"I must mention that Galt's Gulch is not an organized society, but a private club whose members share the same philosophy. It exemplifies the basic moral principles of social relationships among rational men, the principles on which a proper political system should be built.
 
"It does not deal with questions of political organization, with the details of a legal framework needed to establish and maintain a free society open to all, including dissenters. It does not deal with specifically political principles, only with their moral base. (I indicate that the proper political framework is to be found in the Constitution, with its contradictions removed.)"
-----


Another Personal Note:

After spending considerable time creating and working the Judge Narragansett's New Constitution Project and then reading “The Real Lincoln” and “Hologram of Liberty”, I concluded that, without nullification by secession, the Constitution is unenforceable and that the best way to remove the contradictions in the Constitution is to abandon it, restart with the Declaration of Independence and fulfill the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness found therein by understanding and adopting—on a personal level— L. Neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent

If you study these same items and reflect on the nature of Galt’s Gulch, you maybe also come to that same conclusion.

Dennis Wilson
 
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: 2009-January-15 06:57:35 PM »

From: Linacguy1 Sent: 7/4/2006 8:26 AM

Dennis,
 
What are some of the contradictions in the constitution that she is talking about? What the majority of people in this country and most of our present politicians don't seem to understand is that the consititution was never intended as something that told you what you could and couldn't do for every aspect of your life. It is merely a framework for a strong federeal government. One of the reasons it came into being was due to the many weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. During the process there were debates in the papers. Which is where the "Federalist Papers" came from. I really like the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. Mostly because it gets rid of majority rule which is actually just gang rule. Of course we all know that whoever has the most powerful gang makes the rules for everyone else, like it or not.
 
I really want to make it to Ouray on Sept. 2nd especially now that I live in CO.
 
Ernie R. Chambers
 
 
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: 2009-January-15 07:00:44 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 7/6/2006 12:29 AM

In the OVERVIEW to this Constitution Project, ( http://atlasshruggedcelebrationday.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=2.0 )
I point out that the Confederate Constitution already addressed and removed some of the contradictions that Ayn Rand was thinking of, "...especially the deliberate elimination of "general welfare". (!) Please note the changes (prohibitions) regarding "protective tariff" and "internal improvements", very much laissez-faire capitalism and desirable today."
 
You mentioned the Federalist Papers and the "debate", but not the fact that the deliberately weak federalism/centralism in the Articles of Confederation was what Alexander Hamilton objected to and that a Convention was called to attempt a minor change to the Articles but instead Hamilton hijacked the convention with the intent to replace the Articles with his Constitution.
 
Quoting from "Hologram of Liberty" (which I HIGHLY recommend):
 
"It was a group much different from the 1770s--only eight had signed the Declaration of Independence, and six the Article of Confederation. The famous revolutionaries were not delegates: Jefferson and Adams were in Europe, Patrick Henry had refused outright, while Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, and Christopher Gadsen were not even chosen."
 
Sent to "revise" --not to abolish

Although 55 delegates attended the Convention, 14 would later quit (generally because of the Convention's gross disregard for its States' mandate) and go home. Conveniently ignored by most of the remaining 41 delegates was the stubborn fact (virtually admitted by Madison in Federalist #40) that Convention delegates had not been charged by their respective States to scrap the Articles of Confederation."
 
There is so much more, but--just like Objectivism--you would NEVER expect to hear ANY of it in the government run public schools.
 
Lysander Spooner observed in 1870 that "The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." The events of the following 136 years have only served to confirm his view.
   
« Last Edit: 2010-December-14 01:38:54 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: 2009-January-15 07:03:15 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 9/2/2006 10:55 AM
 
It should be obvious to anyone who cares to look that the Constitution no longer limits U.S. Government actions. Therefore, the legal source of the U.S. Government's authority is defunct, null, void, gone, and what we really have is an "archy" with a bunch of thugs and con-men running around impersonating Government rulers as officers and agents. The people in control of the U.S. Government have no legitimate authority, and a revised, "improved" Constitution will not correct that situation because there is no way to enforce it. Therefore, as Jefferson said, it should be abolished.
 
The following is just a reminder of what happened to the first 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights).
 
Dennis

 
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/tle277-20040627-03.html
 
Bill of Rights Nullification by the US Supreme court
by Kristopher Barrett

Special to TLE

They have nullified the first; you have to be a politician to criticise a politician on TV or radio before an election.
 
They have nullified the second; repeatedly since 1934.
 
They have nullified the third; we are now serfs, via taxation. We don't directly quarter the troops ... they wouldn't lower themselves to live in our hovels.
 
They have nullified the fourth; there is no such thing as an illegal search anymore.
 
They have nullified the fifth; remaining silent is now unlawful.
 
They have nullified the sixth; you only get a speedy trial if the supreme court decides you deserve one, jurors are subordinated to the judges, and you can be tried secretly or get no trial at all if you are declared a "terrorist".
 
They have nullified the seventh; unless your civil case involves the exchange of 21 antique silver dollars, you have no right to a jury trial.
 
They have nullified the eighth; if you are declared a terrorist, it's torture and gitmo time for you.
 
They have nullified the ninth; apparently the commerce clause and vague language about the common good cannot be contradicted by a later AMENDMENT.
 
They have nullified the tenth; No Supreme court judge since the 1803 Marbury decision has obeyed that one.
 
The United States Supreme court has finally nullified every one of the Bill of Rights amendments through judicial fiat. The destruction of rule of law in the US is now complete. 
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: 2009-January-15 07:05:36 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 10/22/2006 11:00 AM

The Sovereign Society Offshore A-Letter
Friday, October 20, 2006
Vol. 8 No. 210

As the mid-term elections bear down on us, and the local and national politicians spray the walls and roadsides with campaign posters, I can only roll my eyes at mankind's endless naiveté. We live in a world gradually metamorphosing from one controlled by the tyranny of kings and dictators, to one run by the tyranny of popular opinion.

And popular delusions reign supreme in this world.

Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, has just authored his own tirade against it: "Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It). As he puts it, what many consider the greatest American document is in reality a blueprint for undemocratic governance. He says we're suffering from a "democratic deficit."

Wrong. The world doesn't suffer from a deficit of democracy. It suffers from a deficit of rationality. Nothing is more irrational than an unquestioning reverence for the Constitution (or of democracy itself, for that matter).

What is the Constitution? It is a broad taking away of every individual's power to control his own life and property, and a grant of those powers to a group of politicians. Read it. Only the so-called "Bill of Rights," the first ten amendments, offer any protection to the citizen from government, and even those amendments have been subsequently eviscerated by the Supreme Court.

As for the Constitution, no one can improve on Lysander Spooner's great expose, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. Written back in 1860, No Treason is one of the greatest pieces ever written on individual liberty. Before you genuflect before a document that essentially robs you of every vestige of control over your life and property, read Spooner's words.
 
JOHN PUGSLEY, Chairman 

Link to text of No Treason: http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm   
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: 2009-January-15 07:11:18 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 1/14/2008 9:36 PM

Excerpted from article by Mark Davis at  http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/davis/davis1.html
Emphasis in RED is mine. dlw
 
I also don’t see how Paul and his followers can rail against Hamiltonian policies while at the same time supporting his blueprint for implementing them.  When Hamilton, Jay and Madison wrote the Federalist Papers in support of the Constitution, they were vigorously opposed in what is known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.  Guess who turned out to be correct about the dangers of centralized power, taxes and standing armies?  So if you believe that the Constitution is how we should organize our government, then you are a Hamiltonian.  This contradiction appears lost on many.

The Constitution is the greatest document ever created for the purpose of restraining state power.  It unfortunately also still serves the purpose of creating and legitimizing state power.  Oh, and it failed, miserably; because alas, that is the nature of the beast.  
In case you didn’t notice, the revered Constitution resulted in the largest, most expensive, most powerful central state in the history of the world, with standing armies straddling the globe in the insane quest of being “The World’s Policeman” with a Central Bank to match.  So if the greatest, most liberty-loving geniuses in the history of the world could not construct a “social contract” that would not be abused, is it really possible to do?  Do you think that starting over with Hamilton’s pet plan will turn out any differently for our children?  And ministatists chide anarchists for not being realistic.
 
« Last Edit: 2010-June-02 10:22:23 AM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #11 on: 2009-January-15 07:14:35 PM »

The following two articles that I wrote and published are my agreement with and response to the previous post.

Dennis

[2006-08-06] A personal journey from Objectivist morality to political "anarchy"
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=10.0

[2006-08-20] “…to Institute new Government, laying its foundation…”
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=8.0

« Last Edit: 2010-June-02 10:24:11 AM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #12 on: 2009-December-15 10:46:00 AM »

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/044722.html

Loving Abe Lincoln
Posted by Lew Rockwell on December 12, 2009 09:42 PM

Writes Daniel Pitrone:

    My home state, good ole PA, sorrowfully ratified the Constitution on this day, Dec. 12th, in 1787.

    Dissenters of the ratification openly charged that “its establishment will annihilate the state governments, and produce one consolidated government that will eventually and speedily issue in the supremacy of despotism.”

    Another great quote: “As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burthensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it will be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gathers, excisemen, and the whole host of revenue officers will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious. Like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them.”

    And yet one more: “it is the opinion of the most celebrated writers on government, and confirmed by uniform experience, that very extensive territory cannot be governed on the principles of freedom, otherwise than by a confederation of republics, possessing all the powers of internal government; but united in the management of their general, and foreign concerns.”

    The shell-shock came when I saw the names of the signers, which included a fellow whose good name will forever be sullied by one of history’s monsters. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

    However, it is nice knowing there was at least ONE honest Abe!



http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0401))

Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789
The Library of Congress > American Memory Home > Browse Collections > Collection Home
Document 1 of 1

Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789

The Address and reasons of dissent of the minority of the convention, of the state of Pennsylvania, to their constituents.

Go to: Bibliographic Information

{page 1 image}

T H E

A D D R E S S    A N D    R E A S O N S    O F    D I S S E N T

O F    T H E

M I N O R I T Y    o f     t h e   C O N V E N T I O N,

Of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  to  their  Constituents.


IT was not until after the termination of the late glorious contest, which made the people of the United States an Independent nation, that any defect was discovered in the present confederation. It was formed by some of the ablest patriots in America. It carried us successfully through the war; and in the virtue and patriotism of the people, with their disposition to promote the common cause, supplied the want of power in Congress.

The requisition of Congress for the five per cent. impost was made before the peace, so early as the first of February 1781, but was prevented taking effect by the refusal of one state; yet it is probable every state in the union would have agreed to this measure at that period, had it not been for the extravagant terms in which it was demanded. The requisition was new moulded in the year 1783, and accompanied with additional demand of certain supplementary funds for 25 years. Peace had now taken place, and the United States found themselves laboring under a considerable foreign and domestic, debt, incurred during the war. The requisition of 1783, was commensurate with the interest of the debt as it was then calculated; but it has been more accurately ascertained since that time. The domestic debt has been found to fall several millions of dollars short of the calculation, and it has lately been considerably diminished by large sales of the western lanes. The states have been called on by congress annually for supplies until the general system of finance proposed in 1783 should take place.

It was at this time that the want of an efficient federal government was first complained of, and that the powers vested in congress were found to be inadequate to the procuring of the benefits that should result from the union. The impost was granted by most of the states, but many refused the supplementary funds; the annual requisitions were set at nought by some of the states, while others complied with them by legislative acts, but were tardy in their payments, and congress found themselves incapable of complying with their engagements, and supporting the federal government. It was found that our national character was sinking to the opinion of foreign nations. The congress could make treaties of commerce, but could not enforce the observance of them. We were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations, who had shackled our commerce, while we were unable to retaliate: and all now agreed that it would be advantageous to the union to enlarge the powers of congress; that they should be enabled in the amplest manner to regulate commerce, and to lay and collect duties on the imports throughout the United States. With this view a convention was first proposed by Virginia, and finally recommended by congress for the different states to appoint deputies to meet in convention, " for the purposes of revising and amending the present articles of confederation so as to make them adequate to the exigencies of the union." This recommendation the legislatures of twelve states complied with so hastily as not to consult their constituents on the subject; and though the different legislatures had no authority from their constituents for the purpose, they probably apprehended the necessity would justify the measure; and none of them extended their ideas at that time further than " revising and amending the present articles of confederation." Pennsylvania by the act appointing deputies expressly confined their powers to this object; and through it is probable that some of the members of the assembly of this state, had at that time in contemplation to annihilate the present confederation, as well as the constitution of Pennsylvania, yet the plan was not sufficiently matured to communicate it to the public.

The majority of the legislature of this commonwealth, were at that time under the influence of the members from the city of Philadelphia. They agreed that the deputies sent by them to convention should have no compensation for their services, which determination was calculated to prevent the election of any member who resided at a distance from the city. It was in vain for the minority to attempt electing delegates to the convention, who understood the circumstances, and the feelings of the people, and had a common interest with them. They found a disposition in the leaders of the majority of the house to chuse themselves and some of their dependants---The minority attempted to prevent this by agreeing to vote for some of the leading members, who they knew had influence to be appointed at any rate, in hopes of carrying with them some respectable citizens of Philadelphia, in whose principles and integrity they could have more confidence; but even in this they were disappointed, except in one member:--the eighth member was added at a subsequent session of the assembly.

The Continental convention met in the city of Philadelphia at the time appointed. It was composed of some men of excellent characters; of others who were more remarkable for their ambition and cunning, than their patriotism; and of some who had been opponents to the independence of the United States.--The delegates from Pennsylvania were, six of them, uniform and decided opponents to the constitution of this commonwealth. The convention sat upwards of four months. The doors were kept shut, and the members brought under the most solemn engagements of secrecy.* Some of those who opposed their going so far beyond their powers, retired, hopeless, from the convention, others had the firmness to refuse signing the plan altogether: and many who did sign it, did it not as a system they wholly approved, but as the best that could be then obtained, and notwithstanding the time spent on this subject it is agreed on all hands to be a work of haste and accommodation.

**The Journals of the conclave are still concealed.

Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism, without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people, with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce.

The proposed plan had not many hours issued forth from the womb of suspicious secrecy, until such as were prepared for the purpose, were carrying about petitions for people to sign, signifying their approbation of the system, and requesting the legislature to call a convention. While every measure was taken to intimidate the people against opposing it, the public papers teemed with the most violent threats against those who should dare to think for them selves, and tar and feathers were liberally promised to all those who would not immediately join in supporting the proposed government be it what it would.--Under each circumstances petitions in favor of calling a convention were signed by great numbers in and about the city, before they had leisure to read and examine the system, many of whom, now they are better acquainted with it, and have had time to investigate its principles, are heartily opposed to it. The petitions were speedily handed in to the legislature.

Affairs were in this situation when on the 28th of September last, a resolution was proposed to the assembly by a member of the house who had been also a member of the federal convention, for calling a state convention, to be elected within ten days for the purpose of examining and adopting the proposed constitution of the United States, though at this time the house had not received it from Congress. This attempt was opposed by a minority, who after offering every argument in their power to prevent the precipitate measure, without effect, absented themselves from the house as the only alternative left them, to prevent the measure taking place previous to their constituents being acquainted with the business--That violence and outrage which had been so often threatened was now practised; some of the members were seized the next day by a mob collected for the purpose, and forcibly dragged to the house, and there detained by force whilst the quorum of the legislature, so formed, compleated their resolution. We shall dwell no longer on this subject, the people of Pennsylvania have been already acquainted therewith. We would only further observe that every member of the legislature, previously to taking his seat, by solemn oath or affirmation, declares, "that he will not do or consent to any act or thing whatever that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state." And that constitution which they are so solemnly sworn to support cannot legally be altered but by a recommendation of the council of censors, who alone are authorised to propose alterations and amendments, and even these must be published at least six months, for the consideration of the people,--The proposed system of government for the United States, if adopted, will alter and may annihilate the constitution of Pennsylvania; and therefore the legislature had no authority whatever to recommend the calling a convention for that purpose. The proceeding could not be considered as binding on the people of this commonwealth. The house was formed by violence, some of the members composing it were detained there by force, which alone would have vitiated any proceedings, to which they were otherwise competent; but had the legislature been legally formed, this business was absolutely without their power.

In this situation of affairs were the subscribers elected members of the convention of Pennsylvania.--A convention called by a legislature in direct violation of their duty, and composed in part of members, who were compelled to attend for that purpose, to consider a constitution proposed by a convention of the United States, who were not appointed for the purpose of framing a new form of government, but whose powers were expressly confined to altering and amending the present articles of confederation.--Therefore the members of the continental convention in proposing the plan acted as individuals, and not as deputies from Pennsylvania.†--The assembly who called the state convention acted as individuals, and not as the legislature of Pennsylvania; nor could they or the convention chosen on their recommendation have authority to do any act or thing, that can alter or annihilate the constitution of Pennsylvania (both of which will be done by the new constitution) nor are their proceedings in our opinion, at all binding on the people.

The continental convention in direct violation of the 13th article of confederation, have declared "that the ratification of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution, between the states so ratifying the same."---Thus has the plighted faith of the states been sported with! They had solemnly engaged that the confederation now subsisting should be inviolably preserved by each of them, and the union thereby formed. Should be perpetual, unless the same should be altered by mutual consent.

The election for members of the convention was held at so early a period and the want of information was so great, that some of us did not know of it until after it was over, and we have reason to believe that great numbers of the people of Pennsylvania have not yet had an opportunity of sufficiently examining the proposed constitution.--We apprehend that no change can take place that will affect the internal government or constitution of this commonwealth, unless a majority of the people should evidence a wish for such a change; but on examining the number of votes given for members of the present state convention, we find that of upwards of seventy thousand freemen who are entitled to vote in Pennsylvania, the whole convention has been elected by about thirteen thousand voters, and though two thirds of the members of the convention have thought proper to ratify the proposed constitution, yet those two thirds were elected by the votes on only six thousand and eight hundred freemen.

In the city of Philadelphia and some of the eastern counties, the junto that took the lead in the business agreed to vote for none but such as would solemnly promise to adopt the system in toto, without exercising their judgement. In many of the counties the people did not attend the elections as they had not an opportunity of judging of the plan. Others did not consider them selves bound by the call of a set of men who assembled at the State-House in Philadelphia, and assumed the name of the legislature of Pennsylvania; and some were prevented from voting by the violence of the party who were determined at all events to force down the measure. To such lengths did the tools of despotism carry their outrage, that in the night of the election for members of convention, in the city of Philadelphia, several of the subscribers (being then in the city to transact your business) were grossly abused, ill-treated and insulted while they were quiet in their lodgings, though they did not interfere, nor had any thing to do with the said election, but as they apprehend, because they were suppose to be adverse to the proposed constitution, and would not namely surrender those sacred rights, which you had committed to their charge.

The convention met, and the same disposition was soon manifested in considering the proposed constitution, that had been exhibited in every other stage of the business. We were prohibited by an express vote of the convention, from taking any question on the separate articles of the plan, and reduced to the necessity of adopting or rejecting in toto. ---'Tis true the majority permitted us to debate on each article, but restrained us from proposing amendments.--They also determined not to permit us to enter on the minutes our reasons of dissent against any of the articles nor even on the final question our reasons of dissent against the whole. Thus situated we entered on the examination of the proposed system of government, and found it to be such as we could not adopt, without, as we conceived, surrendering up your dearest rights. We offered our objections to the convention, and opposed those parts of the plan, which, in our opinion, would be injurious to you, in the best manner we were able; and closed our arguments, by offering the following propositions to the convention.

First. The right of conscience shall be held inviolable; and neither the legislative, executive nor judicial powers of the United States, shall have authority to alter, abrogate, or infringe any part of the constitution of the several states, which provide for the preservation of liberty in matters of religion.

Second. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury shall remain as heretofore, as well in the federal courts, as in these of the several states.

Third. That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man has a right to demand that cause and nature of this accusation, as well in the federal courts, as in those of the several states; to be heard by {Omitted text} and {Omitted text} ; to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses; to all for evidence in his favor, and a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent, he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to five evidence against himself; and that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Fourth. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted.

Fifth. That warrants unsupported by evidence, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are grievous and oppressive, and shall not be granted either by the magistrates of the federal government or others.

Sixth. That the people have a right to the freedom of speech, of writing and publishing their sentiments, therefore, the freedom of the press shall not be restrained by any law of the United States.

Seventh. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

Eighth. The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands' they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.

Ninth. That no law shall be passed to restrain the legislatures of the several states, from enacting laws for imposing taxes, except imposts and duties on goods imported or exported, and that no taxes except imposts and duties on goods imported and exported, and postage on letters, shall be levied by the authority of Congress.

Tenth. That the house of representatives be properly increased in number; that elections shall remain free; that the several states shall have power to regulate the elections for senators and representatives, without being controuled either directly or indirectly by any interference on the part of the Congress; and that elections of representatives be annual.

Eleventh. That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.

That the sovereignty, freedom and independency of the several states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

Twelfth. That the legislative, executive, and judicial powers be kept separate; and to this end, that a constitutional council be appointed, to advise and assist the president, who shall be responsible for the advice they give, hereby the senators would be relieved from almost constant

{page 2 image}

attendence; and also that the judges be made completely independent.

Thirteenth. That no treaty which shall be directly opposed to the existing laws of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be valid until such laws shall be repealed or made conformable to such treaty; neither shall any treaties be valid which are in contradiction to the constitution of the United States, or the constitutions of the several states.

Fourteenth. That the judiciary power of the United States shall be confined to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states--between a state and citizens of different states --between citizens claiming lands under grants of different states; and between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states; and in criminal cases to such only as are expressly enumerated in the constitution, and that the United States in Congress assembled, shall not have power to enact laws, which shall alter the laws of descents and distribution of the effects of deceased persons, the titles of land or goods, or the regulation of contracts in the individual states.

After reading these propositions, we declared our willingness to agree to the plan, provided it was so amended as to meet those propositions, or something similar to them: and finally move the convention to adjourn, to give the people of Pennsylvania time to consider the subject, and determine for themselves; but these were all rejected, and the final vote was take, when our duty to you induced us to vote against the proposed plan, and to decline signing the ratification of the same.

During the discussion we met with many insults, and some personal abuse; we were not even treated with decency, during the sitting of the convention, by the persons in the gallery of the house; however, we flatter ourselves that in contending for the preservation of those invaluable rights you have thought proper to commit to our charge, we acted with spirit becoming freemen, and being desirous that you might know the principles which actuated our conduct, and being prohibited from inserting our reasons of dissent on the minutes of the convention, we have subjoined them for your consideration, as to you alone we are accountable. It remains with you whether you will think those inestimable privileges, which you have so ably contended for, should be sacrificed at the shrine of despotism, or whether you mean to contend for them with the same spirit that has often baffled the attempts of an aristocratic faction, to rivet the shackles of slavery on you, and your unborn posterity.

Our objections are comprised under three general heads of dissent, viz.

WE DISSENT, First, Because it is the opinion of the most celebrated writers on government, and confirmed by uniform experience, that very extensive territory cannot be governed on the principles of freedom, otherwise than by a confederation of republics, possessing all the powers of internal government; but united in the management of their general, and foreign concerns.

If any doubt could have been entertained of the truth of the foregoing principle, it has been fully removed by the concession of Mr. Wilson, one of the majority on this question, and who was one of the deputies in the late general convention. In justice to him, we will give his own words; they are as follows, viz. "The extent of country for which the new constitution was required; produced another difficulty in the business of the federal convention. It is the opinion of some celebrated writers, that to a small territory, the democratical; to a middling territory (as Montesquieu has termed it) the monarchical; and to an extensive territory, the despotic form of government, is best adapted. Regarding then the wide and almost unbounded jurisdiction of the United States, at first view, the hand of despotism seemed necessary to controul, connect, and protect it; and hence the chief embarrassment role. For, we knew that, although our constituents would chearfully submit to the legislative restraints of a free government, they would spurn at every attempt to shackle them with despotic power."--And again in another part of his speech he continues.--" Is it probable that the dissolution of the state governments, and the establishment of one consolidated empire would be eligible in its nature, and satisfactory to the people in its administration? I think not, as I have given reasons to shew that so extensive a territory could not be governed, connected, and preserved, but by the supremacy of despotic power. All the exertions of the most potent emperors of Rome were not capable of keeping that empire together, which in extent was far inferior to the dominion of America."

We dissent, secondly, because the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism, as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government.

As the truth of this position is of such decisive importance, it ought to be fully investigated, and if it is founded to be clearly ascertained; for, should demonstrated, that the powers vested by this constitution in Congress, will have such an effect, as necessarily to produce one consolidated government, the question then will be reduced to this short issue, viz. whether satiated with the blessings of liberty; whether repenting of the folly of so recently asserting their unalienable rights, against foreign despots, at the expence of so much blood and treasure, and such painful and arduous struggles, the people of America are now willing to resign every privilege of freemen, and submit to the domination of an absolute government, that will embrace all America in one chain of despotism; or whether they will with virtuous indignation, spurn at the shackles prepared for them, and confirm their liberties by a conduct becoming freemen.

That the new government will not be a confederacy of states, as it ought, but one consolidated government, founded upon the destruction of the several governments of the states, we shall now shew.

The powers of Congress under the new constitution, are compleat and unlimited over the purse and the sword, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments: whose intervention in these great points is entirely destroyed. By virtue of their power of taxation, Congress may command the whole, or any part of the property of the people. They may impose what imposts upon commerce; they may impose what land-taxes, poll-taxes, excises, duties on all written instruments, and duties on every other article that may judge proper; in short, every species of taxation, whether of an external or internal nature is comprised in section the 8th, of article the 1st, viz. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

As there is no one article of taxation reserved to the state governments, the Congress may monopolise every source of revenue, and thus indirectly demolish the state governments, for without funds they could not exist, the taxes, duties and excises imposed by Congress may be so high as to render it impracticable to levy further sums on the same articles; but whether this should be the case or not, if the state governments should presume to impose taxes, duties or excises, on the same articles with Congress, the latter may abrogate and repeal the laws whereby they are imposed, upon the allegation that they interfere with the due collection of their taxes, duties or excises, by virtue of the following clause, part of section 8th, article 1st, via. "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

The congress might gloss over this conduct by construing every purpose for which the state legislatures now lay taxes, to be for the "general welfare," and therefore as of their jurisdiction.

And the supremacy of the laws of the United States is established by article 6th, viz. "That this constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to be contrary notwithstanding." It has been alledged that the words "pursuant to the constitution," are a restriction upon the authority of Congress; but when it is considered that by other sections they are invested with every efficient power of government, and which may be exercised to the absolute destruction of the state governments, without any violation of ever the forms of the constitution, this seeming restriction, as well as every other restriction in it, appears to us to be nugatory and delusive; and only introduced as a {Omitted text} nd upon the real nature of the government. In our opinion, "pursuant to the constitution," will be co-extensive with the will and pleasure of Congress, which, indeed, will be the only limitation of their powers.

We apprehend, that two co-ordinate sovereignties would be a solecism in politics. That therefore there is no line of distinction drawn between the general, and state governments; as the sphere of their jurisdiction is undefined; it would be contrary to the nature of things, that both should exit together, one or the other would necessarily triumph in the fullness of dominion. However the contest could not be of long continuance, as the state governments are divested of every means of defence, and will be obliged by "the supreme law of the land" to yield at discretion.

It has been objected to this total destruction of the state governments, that the existence of their legislatures is made essential to the organization of Congress; that they must assemble for the appointment of the senators and president general of the United States. True, the state legislatures may be continued for some years, as boards of appointment, merely, after they are divested of every other function; but the framers of the constitution foreseeing that the people will soon be disgusted with this solemn mockery of a government without power and usefulness, have made a provision for relieving them from the imposition, in section 4th, of article 1st, viz. " The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by legislature thereof;but the Congress may at any time, by law make or alter such regulations; except as to the place of chusing senators.

As Congress have the controul over the time of the appointment of the president general, of the senators and of the representatives of the United States, they may prolong their existence in office, for life, by postponing the time of their election and appointment, from period to period, under various pretences, such, as an apprehension of invasion, the factious disposition of the people, or any other plausible pretence that the occasion may suggest; and having thus obtained the life-estates in the government, they may fill up the vacancies themselves, by their controul over the mode of appointment; with this exception in regard to the senators, that as the place of appointment for them, must, by the constitution, be in the particular state, they may depute some body in the respective states, to fill up the vacancies in the senate, occasioned by death, until they can venture to assume it themselves. In this manner, may the only restriction in this cause, be evaded. By virtue of the foregoing section, when the spirit of the people shall be gradually broken; when the general government shall be firmly established, and when a numerous standing army shall render opposition vain, the Congress may compleat the system of despotism, in renouncing all dependance on the people, by continuing themselves, and children in the government.

The celebrated Montesquieu, in his Spirit of Laws, vol. 1, page 12th, says " That in a democracy there can be no exercise of sovereignty, but by the suffrages of the people, which are their will; now the sovereigns will is the sovereign himself; the laws therefore, which establish the right of suffrage, are fundamental to this government. In fact it is as important to regulate in a republic in what manner, by whom, and concerning what, suffrages are to be given, as it is in a monarch to know who is the prince, and after what manner he ought to govern." The time, mode, and place of the election of representatives, senators and president general of the United States, ought not to be under the controul of Congress, but fundamentally ascertained an established.

The new constitution, consistently with the plan of consolidation, contains no reservation of the rights and priviledges of the state governments, which was made in the confederation of the year 1778, by article the 2d, viz. "That each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

The legislative power vested in Congress by the foregoing recited sections, is so unlimited in its nature; may be so comprehensive and boundless in its exercise, that this alone would be amply sufficient to annihilate the state governments, and swallow them up in the grand vortex of general empire.

The judicial powers vested in Congress are also so various and extensive, that by legal ingenuity they may be extended to every case, and thus absorb the state judiciaries, and when to consider the decisive influence that a general judiciary would have over the civil polity of the several states, we do not hesitate to pronounce that this power, unaided by the legislative, would effect a consolidation of the states under one government.

The powers of a court of equity, vested by this constitution, in the tribunals of Congress; powers which do not exist in Pennsylvania, unless so far as they can be incorporated with jury trial, would, in this state, greatly contribute to this event. The rich and wealthy suitors would eagerly lay hold of the infinite mazes, perplexities and delays, which a court of chancery, with the appellate powers of the supreme court in fact as well as law would furnish him with, and thus the poor man being plunged in the bottomless pit of legal discussion, would drop his demand in despair.

In short, consolidation pervades the whole constitution. It begins with an annunciation that such was the intention. The main pillars of the fabric correspond with it, and the concluding paragraph is a confirmation of it--The preamble begins with the words, "We the people of the United States," which is the style of a compact between individuals entering into a state of society, and not that of a confederation of states. The other features of consolidation, we have before noticed.

Thus we have fully established the position, that the powers vested by this constitution in Congress, will effect a consolidation of the states under one government, which even the advocates of this constitution admit, could not be done, without the sacrifice of all liberty.

3. We dissent, Thirdly, Because if it were practicable to govern so extensive a territory as these United States, includes, on the plan of a consolidated government, consistent with the principles of liberty and the happiness of the people, yet the construction of this constitution is not calculated to attain the object, for independent of the nature of the case, it would of itself, necessarily, produce a despotism, and that not by the usual gradations, but with the celerity that has hitherto only attended revolutions affected by the sword.

To establish the truth of this position, a cursory investigation of the principles and form of this constitution will suffice.

The first consideration that this review suggests, is the omission of a BILL OF RIGHTS, ascertaining and fundamentally establishing those unalienable and personal rights of men, without the full, free and secure enjoyment of which there can be no liberty, and over which it is not necessary for a good government to have the controul. The principal of which are the rights of conscience, personal liberty by the clear and unequivocal establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, jury trial in criminal and civil cases, by an impartial jury of the vicinage or county, with the common law proceedings, for the safety of the accused in criminal prosecutions; and the liberty of the press, that scourge of tyrants, and the grand bulwark of every other liberty and privilege: the stipulations heretofore made in favour of them in the state constitutions, are entirely superceded by this constitution.

The legislature of a free country should be so formed as to have a competent knowledge of its constituents, and enjoy their confidence.--To produce these essential requisites, the representation ought to be fair, equal and sufficiently numerous, to possess the same interests, feelings, opinions and views, which the people themselves would possess, were they all assembled; and so numerous as to prevent bribery and undue influence, and so responsible to the people, by frequent and fair elections, as to prevent their neglecting, or sacrificing the views and interests of their constituents, to their own pursuits.

We will now bring the legislature under this constitution to the test of the foregoing principles, which will demonstrate, that it is deficient in every essential quality of a just and safe representation.

The house of representatives is to consist of 65 members; that is one for every 50,000 inhabitants, to be chosen every two years. Thirty-three members will form a quorum for doing business, and seventeen of these, being the majority, determine the sense of the house.

The senate, the other constituent branch of the legislature, consists of 26 members, being two from each state, appointed by their legislatures every six years--fourteen senators make a quorum; the majority of whom, eight, determines the sense of that body: except in judging on impeachments, or in making treaties, or in expelling a member, when two thirds of the senators present, must concur.

The president is to have the controul over the enacting of laws, so far as to make the concurrence of two thirds of the representatives and senators present necessary, if he should object to the laws.

Thus it appears, that the liberties, happiness, interests, and great concerns, of the whole United States, may be dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom. and knowledge of 25 or 26 men. How inadequate and unsafe a representation! Inadequate, because the sense and views of 3 or 4 millions of people diffused over so extensive a territory, comprising such various climates, products, habits, interests, and opinions, can not be collected in so small a body; and besides, it is not a fair and equal representation of the people, even in proportion to its number, for the smallest state has as much weight in the senate as the largest, and from the smallest of the number to be chosen for both branches of the legislature; and from the mode of election and appointment; which is under the controul of Congress; and from the nature of the thing, men of the most elevated rank in life, will alone be chosen. The other orders in the society, such as farmers, traders, and mechanics, who all ought to have a competent number of their best informed men in the legislature, will be totally unrepresented.

The representation is unsafe, because in the exercise of such great powers and trusts, it is so exposed to corruption and undue influence, by the gift of the numerous places of honor and emolument, at the disposal of the executive; by the arts and address of the great and designing; and by direct bribery.

The representation is moreover inadequate and unsafe, because of the long terms for which it is appointed, and the mode of its appointment, by which congress may not only controul the choice of the people, but may so manage as to divest the people of this fundamental right, and become self-elected.

The number of members in the house of representatives may be encreased to one for every 30,000 inhabitants. But when we consider, that this cannot be done without the consent of the senate, who from their share i the legislative, in the executive, and judicial departments, and permanency of appointment, will be the great efficient body in this government, and whose weight and predominancy would be abridged by an encrease of the representatives, we are persuaded that this is a circumstance that cannot be expected. On the contrary, the number of representatives will probably be continued at 65, although the population of the country may swell to treble what it now is; unless a revolution should effect a change.

We have before noticed the judicial power as it would effect a consolidation of the states into one government; we will now examine it, as it would affect the liberties and welfare of the people, supporting such a government were practicable and proper.

The judicial power, under the proposed constitution, is founded on the well-known principles of the civil law, by which the judge determines both on law and fact, and
« Last Edit: 2009-December-15 12:15:50 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #13 on: 2009-December-15 11:35:16 AM »

[continued]

{page 3 image}

appeals are allowed from the inferior tribunals to the superior, upon the whole question; so that facts, as well as law, would be re-examined, and even new facts brought forward in the court of appeals; and to use the words of a very eminent Civilian, " The cause is many times another thing before the court of appeals, than what it was at the time of the first sentence."

That this mode of proceeding is the one which must be adopted under this constitution, is evident form the following circumstances; 1st. That the trial by jury; which is the grand characteristic of the common law is secured by the constitution, only in criminal cases.--2d. That the appeal from both law and fact is expressly established, which is utterly inconsistent with the principles of the common law, and trials by jury. The only mode in which an appeal from law and fact can be established, is by adopting the principles and practice of the civil law; unless the United States should be drawn into the absurdity of calling and swearing juries, merely, for the purpose of contradicting the verdicts, which would render juries contemptible and worse than useless.--3d. That the courts to be established would decide on all cases of law and equity, which is a well known characteristic of the civil law, and these courts would have conusance not only of the laws of the United States and treaties, and of cases affecting ambassadors, but of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, which last are matters belonging exclusively to the civil law, in every nation in Christendom.

Not to enlarge upon the loss of the invaluable right of trial by an unbiassed jury, so dear to every friend of liberty, the monstrous expence and inconveniences of the mode of proceedings to be adopted, are such, as will prove intolerable to the people of this country. The lengthy proceedings of the civil law courts in the chancery of England, and in the courts of Scotland and France, are such that few men of moderate fortune can endure the expence of; the poor man must therefore submit to the wealthy. Length of purse will too often prevail against right and justice. For instance, we are told by the learned judge Blackstone, that a question, only on the property of an ox, of the value of three guineas, originating under the civil law proceedings in Scotland, after many interlocutory orders and sentences below, was carried at length from the court of sessions, the highest court in that part of Great Britain, by way of appeal to the house of lords, where the question of law and fact was finally determined. He adds, that no pique or spirit, could in the court of king's bench or common pleas at Westminster, have given continuance to such a cause for a tenth part of the time, nor have cost a twentieth part of the expence. Yet the costs in the courts of king's bench and common pleas in England, are infinitely greater than those which the people of this country have ever experienced. We abhor the idea of losing the transcendant privilege of trial by jury, with the loss of which, it remarked by the same learned author, that in Sweden, the liberties of the commons were extinguished by an aristocratic senate; and that trial by jury and the liberty of the people went out together. At the same time we regret the intolerable delay, the enormous expences and infinite vexation to which the people of this country will be exposed from the voluminous proceedings of the courts of civil law and especially from the appellate jurisdiction, by means of which a man may be drawn from the utmost boundaries of this extensive country to the seat of the supreme court of the nation to contend, perhaps, with a wealthy and powerful adversary. The consequence of this establishment will be an absolute confirmation of the power of aristocratical influence in the courts of justice; for the common people will not be able to contend or struggle against it.

Trial by jury in criminal cases may also be excluded by declaring that the libeller for instance shall be liable to an action of debt for a specified sum; thus evading the common law prosecution by indictment and trial by jury. And the common course of proceeding against a ship for breach of revenue laws by information (which will be classed among civil causes,) will, at the civil law be within the resort of a court, where no jury intervenes. Besides, the benefit of jury trial, in cases of a criminal nature, which cannot be evaded, will be rendered of little value by calling the accused to answer far from home; there being no provision that the trial be by a jury of the neighbourhood or country. Thus an inhabitant of Pittsburgh; on a charge of crime committed on the banks of the Ohio, may be obliged to defend himself at the side of the Delaware, and so vice versa. To conclude this head: We observe that the judges of the courts of Congress would not be independent, as they are not debarred from holding other offices, during the pleasure of the president and senate, and as they may derive their support in part from fees, alterable by the legislature.

The next consideration that the constitution presents, is the undue and dangerous mixture of the powers of government; the same body a possessing legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The senate is a constituent branch of the legislature, it has judicial power in judging on impeachments, and in this case unites in some measure, the characters of judge and party, as all the principal officers are appointed by the president-general, with the concurrence of the senate, and therefore they derive their offices in part from the senate. This may biass the judgements of the senators and tend to skreen great delinquents from punishment. And the senate has, moreover, various and great executive powers, viz. in concurrence with the president-general, they form treaties with foreign nations that may controul and abrogate the constitutions and laws of the several states. Indeed, there is no power, privilege or liberty of the state governments, or of the people, but what may be affected by virtue of this power. For all treaties, made by them, are to be the "supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state, to the contrary notwithstanding."

And this great power may be exercised by the president and 10 senators, (being two-thirds of 14, which is a quorum of that body) what an inducement would this offer to the ministers of foreign powers to compass by bribery such concessions, as could not otherwise be obtained. It is the unvaried usage of all free states, whenever treaties interfere with the positive laws of the land, to make the intervention of the legislature necessary to give them operation. This became necessary and was afforded by the parliament of Great Britain, in consequence of the late commercial treaty between that kingdom and France.- As the senate judges on impeachments, who is to try the members of the senate for the abuse of this power! And none of the great appointments to office can be made without the consent of the senate.

Such various, extensive, and important powers combined in one body of men, are inconsistent with all freedom; the celebrated Montesquieu tells us, that "when the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or s{Omitted text} e should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them [in?] a tyrannical manner."

"Again, there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated rom the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject, would be exposed to arbitrary controul; for the judge would then be legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor. There would be an end of everything, were the same man, or the same body of the nobles, or of the people, to exercise these three powers; that of enacting laws; that of executing the public resolutions; and that of judging the crimes or differences of individuals."

The president general is dangerously connected with the senate, his coincidence with the views of the ruling junto in that body,is made essential to his weight and importance in the government, which will destroy all independency and purity in the executive department, and having the power of pardoning without the concurrence of a council, he may skreen from punishment the most treasonable attempts that may be made on the liberties of the people, when instigated by his coadjutors in the senate. Instead of this dangerous and improper mixture of the executive with the legislative and judicial, the supreme executive powers ought to have been placed in the president, with a small independent council, made personally responsible for every appointment to office, or other act, by having their opinions recorded; and that without the concurrence of the majority of the quorum of this council, the president should not be capable of taking any step.

We have before considered internal taxation, as it would effect the destruction of the state governments, and produce on consolidated government. We will now consider that subject as it affects the personal concerns of the people.

The power of direct taxation applies to every individual, as congress under this government is expressly vested with the authority of laying a capitation or poll-tax upon every person to any amount. This is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in it collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments. Some of those who were in the late general convention from this state, have long labored to introduce a poll-tax among us.

The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual, as congress may tax land, cattle, trades, occupations, &c. to any amount, and every object of internal taxation is of that nature, that however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative, either to pay the tax, or let their property be taken for all resistance will be vain. The standing army and select militia would enforce the collection.

For the moderate exercise of this power, there is no controul left in the state governments, whose intervention is destroyed. No relief, or redress of grievances can be extended, as heretofore by them. There is not even a declaration of RIGHTS to which the people may appeal for the vindication of their wrongs in the courts of justice. They must therefore, implicitly, obey the most arbitrary laws, as the worst of them, will be pursuant to the principles and form of the constitution, and that strongest of all checks upon the conduct of administration, responsibility to the people, will not exist in this government. The permanency of the appointments of senators and representatives, and the controul the congress have over their election, will place them independent of the sentiments and resentment of the people, and the administration having a greater interest in the government than in the community, there will be no consideration to restrain them from oppression and tyranny. In the government of this state, under the old confederation, the members of the legislature are taken from among the people and their interests and welfare are so inseparably connected with those of their constituents, that they can derive no advantage from oppressive laws and taxes, for they would suffer in common with their fellow citizens; would participate in the burthens they impose on the community, as they must return to the common level, after a short period; and notwithstanding every exertion of influence, every means of corruption, a necessary rotation excludes them from permanency in the legislature.

This large state is to have but ten members in that congress which is to have the liberty, property and dearest concerns of every individual of this vast country at absolute command; and ever these ten persons, who are to be our only guardians; who are to supercede the legislature of Pennsylvania, will not be of the choice of the people, nor amenable to them. From the mode of their election and appointment they will consist of the lordly and high-minded; of men who will have no congenial feelings with the people, but a perfect indifference for, and contempt of them, they will consist of those harpies of power, that prey upon the very vitals; that riot on the miseries of the community. But we will suppose, although in all probability it may never be realised in fact, that our deputies in congress have the welfare of their constituents at heart, and will exert themselves in their behalf, what security could even this afford; what relief could they extend to their oppressed constituents? To attain this, the majority of the deputies of the twelve other states in congress must be alike well disposed; must alike forego the sweets of power, and relinquish the pursuits of ambition, which from the nature of things is not to be expected. If the people part with a responsible representation in the legislature, founded upon fair, certain and frequent election, they have nothing left they can call their own. Miserable is the let of that people whose every concern depends on the WILL and PLEASURE of their rulers. Our soldiers will become Janissaries, and our officers of government Bashaws; in the short the system of despotism would soon be compleated.

From the foregoing investigation, it appears that the congress under this constitution, will not possess the confidence of the people, which is an essential requisite in a good government; for unless the laws command the confidence and respect of the great body of the people, so as to induce them to support them, when called on by the civil magistrate, they must be executed by the aid of a numerous standing army, which would be inconsistent with every idea of liberty; for the same force that may be employed to compel obedience to good laws, might and probably would be used to wrest from the people their constitutional liberties. The framers of this constitution appear to have been aware of this great deficiency; to have been sensible that no dependence could be placed on the people for their support: but on the contrary, that the government must be executed by force. They have therefore, made a provision for this purpose in a permanent STANDING ARMY, and a MILITIA that may be subjected to a strict discipline and government.

A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes, and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power.

The absolute unqualified command that congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty, both public and private; whether of a personal, civil, or religious nature.

First, The personal liberty of every man probably from sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by the power congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind, and to death itself by the sentence of a court martial: To this our young men will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them, will best answer the purposes of government.

Secondly, The rights of conscience maybe violated, as there is no exemption of those persons, who are conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms. These compose a respectable proportion of the community in the state. This is the more remarkable, because even when the distresses of the late war, and the evident disaffection of many citizens of that description, inflamed our passions, and when every person, who was obliged to risque his own life, must have been exasperated, against such as on any account kept back from the common danger, yet even then, when outrage and violence might have been expected, the rights of conscience were held sacred.

At this momentous crisis, the framers of our state constitution, made the most express and decided declaration and stipulations in favor of the rights of conscience: but now when no necessity exists, those dearest rights of men are left insecure.

Thirdly, the absolute command of congress over the militia, may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be march to New-England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will, no doubt, be successful in subduing their liberty and independency; but in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be encreased, and those in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of rivetting the chains of despotism on their fellow citizens and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the constitution but in strict conformity with it, it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.

As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burthensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it will be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gathers, excisemen, and the whole host of revenue officers will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious. Like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them.

We have not noticed the smaller, nor many of the considerable blemishes, but have confined our objections to the great and essential defects; the main pillars of the constitution; which we have shewn to be inconsistent with the liberty and happiness of the people, as its establishment will annihilate the state governments, and produce one consolidated government that will eventually and speedily issue in the supremacy of despotism.

In this investigation, we have not confined our view to the interests or welfare of this state, in preference to the others. We have over looked all local circumstances--we have considered this subject on the broad scale of the general good; we have asserted the cause of the present and future ages; the cause of liberty and mankind.

Nathaniel Breading,..........John Ludwig,
John Smilie,..........Abraham Lincoln,
Richard Baird,..........John Bishop,
Adam Orth,..........Joseph Heister,
John A. Hanna,..........Joseph Powel,
John Whitehill,..........James Martin,
John Harris,..........William Findley,
Robert Whitehill,..........John Baird,
John Reynolds,..........James Edgar,
Jonathan Hoge,..........William Todd,
Nicholas Lutz,


The yeas and nays upon the final vote were as follows, viz.
   YEAS................YEAS.
George Latimer,..........John Hubley,
Benjamin Rush,..........Jasper Yates,
Hilary Baker,..........Henry Slagle,
James Wilson,..........Thomas Campbell,
Thomas M'Kean,..........Thomas Hartley,
William M'Pherson,..........David Grier,
John Hunn,..........John Black,
George Gray,..........Benjamin Pedan,
Samuel Ashmead,..........John Arndt,
Enoch Edwards,..........Stephen Balliott,
Henry Wynkoop,..........Joseph Horsefield,
John Barclay,..........David Deshler,
Thomas Yardley,..........William Wilson,
Abraham Stout,..........John Boyd,
Thomas Bull,..........Thomas Scott,
Anthony Wayne,..........John Nevill,
William Gibbons,..........John Allison,
Richard Downing,..........Jonathan Roberts,
Thomas Cheyney,..........John Richards
John Hannah,..........F.A. Muhlenberg,
Stephen Chambers,..........James Morris,
Robert Coleman,..........Timothy Pickering,
Sebastian Graff,..........Benjamin Elliot,..........46

   NAYS................. NAYS.
John Whitehill,..........William Findley,
John Harris,..........John Baird,
John Reynolds,..........William Todd,
Robert Whitehill,..........James Marshall,
Jonathan Hoge,..........James Edgar,
Nicholas Lutz,..........Nathaniel Breading.
John Ludwig,..........John Smilie,
Abraham Lincoln,..........Richard Baird,
John Bishop,..........William Brown,
Joseph Heisler,..........Adam Orth,
James Martin,..........John Andre Hannah,
Joseph Powell,......................................23

   Philadelphia, December 12, 1787.

[Philadelphia: Printed by E. Oswald, at the Coffee-House.]

{page 4 image}
The fourth page is unreadable (as can be see by clicking on the page image) except for the recorder's markings at the bottom of the page. Close study of the page--especially the bottom/left--will reveal that it is bleed thru of the third page onto the blank back.
« Last Edit: 2009-December-15 11:58:12 AM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 489


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #14 on: 2010-June-02 10:16:39 AM »

http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar00.htm

Letters from the Federal Farmer

A systematic criticism of the proposed Constitution and full elaboration of anti-federalist thought was provided in a series of articles published in New York in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal from November, 1787, through January, 1788, usually titled Letters from the Federal Farmer. The first five of these articles were also republished as a pamphlet in New York and circulated widely.

The author has long been thought to be Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress then sitting in New York, but many scholars later came to think the author was more likely to be Melancton Smith of New York. It is also possible that the articles were written by both men in collaboration.

In addition to the above link, see also...:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D690


« Last Edit: 2010-June-02 11:02:30 AM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!