In 1787 the population of the 3 million+, it consisted of .06% attorneys, and yet how many attorneys were at the Philadelphia convention? Of the original 55, 34 were attorneys.

Of the 39 people who signed the constitution, 22 were attorneys. The lawyers that created the Constitution wanted to make sure that regardless of what the issue was, regardless of who came up with this or that, that the final arbiter would be a lawyer. They added that the courts could decide not only on the law but on the facts. If an appellate court (which includes the Supreme Court) can decide on the facts as well as the law, they can overturn a jury decision. That gave the lawyers the ability to overturn the will of the people through both Grand Jury and Petit Jury. The Judicial Act of 1789 / Judiciary Act gave them that ability. However, note that this is true of the corporate jurisdiction, the common law jury decisions, according to the Supreme Court, cannot be appealed.

Who was represented at the founding of the constitution? There were no farmers there, no yeomen there (workers), no what were called at the time ‘mechanics’, none of those people were represented at the Constitutional Convention. The wealthy aristocracy was 100% there.

If we look at one of the delegates from Maryland, John Francis Mercer, who attended the constitutional convention for a very short time and said ‘No, I’m not putting up with this’, he went home. He sent a letter to his fellow delegate, Luther Martin, saying “Are you aware that over 20 of the people who are at that convention are avowed Monarchists?” (See Constitutional Convention)

In 1812, the British torched and burned the white house and all U.S. government buildings to the ground, destroying many ratification records of the U.S. constitution.

It seems James Wilson gave what has become the conventional view of ratification.

“We the people—it is announced in their name, it is clothed with their authority from whom all power originated and ultimately belong, Magna Carta is the grant of a king. The Constitution is the act of a people and what they have not expressly granted they have retained.”

The Constitution was designed to provide Abraham Lincoln all the tools he needed to be the most unconstitutional president in history. - Michael Gaddy

THE THREE-FIFTHS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (1787)

Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

The three-fifths clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The most notable other clauses prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended U.S. participation in the international slave trade in 1807. These compromises reflected Virginia Constitutional Convention delegate (and future U.S. President) James Madison’s observation that “…the States were divided into different interests not by their…size…but principally from their having or not having slaves.”

Note: The North didn’t want the black person to count at all for representation. Oliver Ellsworth said “...if those people in the South can count their slaves, I should be able to count my horses, cows and chickens.”

Notes from Podcast Download - Episode 201 Michael Gaddy on the myth of We the People | Podbean

At best, anyone who was “we the people” has been dead for over 200 years. Lysander Spooner said when the last person who was alive when the Constitution was ratified died, the Constitution lost all of it’s effect and all of it’s power.

At the Constitutional Convention there was the Committee of Style and Arrangement. In late August of 1787 this committee (which was all Federalists and by a great majority, attorneys) was handed the rough draft of the Constitution and told to prepare it through style and arrangement. Unfortunately, the head master of the group, who wasn’t the Committee Chairman, but was the guy who did all of the penmanship, Gouverneur Morris took poetic license and completely changed the preamble to the Constitution. He added things into the Constitution which had been voted down by the Committee of the whole. After he did that it wasn’t voted on.

This was debated 10-15 years after the Constitution took effect.

Ironically, when we say We The People, in 1787 less than 6% of the country could vote because there was a property requirement. So, in essence, We The People was 6% of the population.

In the Virginia Ratification Convention, Patrick Henry challenged it, speaking 17 of 24 days, one day for 7 consecutive hours, said what right did you have to say We The People? Should it have not been, We The States? Samuel Bryon wrote about it in the Centinel. To show you how much they don’t want us reading the Centinel, his 24 essays are for sale on Amazon for $930. Samuel Bryon saw it, probably better than any other person we call an anti-federalist. Bryon was the printed word, his counterpart Patrick Henry was the orator. Those two men fought as hard as they could to reveal to the American public of 1788 what a fraud the Constitution was.

To understand history we have to understand the character of history. History is written by the victors and in our case, the victors were the Federalists. One of our greatest problems is this bastardization of putting everybody in one group and calling them the Founders. These people didn’t like each other. They were involved in duels. Some of them killed each other. Samuel Bryon said, the first thing these Federalists will do with this Constitution is to wrap it in the robes of divinity. There are a lot of people teaching an incorrect revisionist history. Many have spent many years in an educational system learning this revisionist history and when they encounter the true history (from source documents), try to rationalize with opinion rather than the factual historical documents themselves.

Michael Gaddy writes:

Never forget that the men who wrote the constitution had no regard for the “rule of law.” Everything they did in Philadelphia in 1787 was a violation of both the directives from the legislatures of their respective states and a direct violation and disregard for the mandates of the laws as stated in the Articles of Confederation—the law of the land at that time!

On June 4, 1788, Mr. HENRY moved, —

That the act of Assembly appointing deputies to meet at Annapolis to consult with those from some other states, on the situation of the commerce of the United States — the act of Assembly appointing deputies to meet at Philadelphia, to revise the Articles of Confederation — and other public papers relative thereto — should be read.”

The Federalists must have frozen in their shoes at this motion. Had all these federalist machinations to form a new government been made public at this time, the very idea of ratification may have been blown out of the water. But, immediately, passionate Federalist Edmund Pendleton, who repeatedly clashed with Patrick Henry over his stance on the Stamp Act and other issues with England he considered to be “divisive” and had previously referred to Henry as a “demagogue,” made a completely absurd, yet very revealing objection to Patrick Henry’s motion:

Mr. PENDLETON then spoke to the following effect: Mr. Chairman, we are not to consider whether the federal Convention exceeded their powers. It strikes my mind that this ought not to influence our deliberations. This Constitution was transmitted to Congress by that the Convention; by the Congress transmitted to our legislature; by them recommended to the people; the people have sent us hither to determine whether this government be a proper one or not. I did not expect these papers would have been brought forth. Although those gentlemen were only directed to consider the defects of the old system, and not devise a new one, if they found it so thoroughly defective as not to admit a revising, and submitted a new system to our consideration, which the people have deputed us to investigate, I cannot find any degree of propriety in reading those papers.

So, The Federalists, as voiced by Pendleton, here stated that it was irrelevant as to whether they had acted unconstitutionally (an illegal act) in forming the new constitution and such crimes ought not to influence the convention in its decision making process. Then, Pendleton goes on to admit the convention in Philadelphia was “only directed to consider the defects in the old system” and offer amendments to that end and had no authority whatsoever to “devise a new one.” Exactly how anyone cannot determine the Federalists were not as Samuel Bryan would write, “engaged in a criminal conspiracy,” is beyond my understanding.

Edmund Pendleton would here make the case that if this crime was ratified by a majority of delegates and eventually the states, it would take on the mantle of legality. Really? How many people does it take to condone child molestation, murder or treason for it to be declared legal? This is the exact position I have heard taken by one of the leaders of the Libertarian movement in recent months. Can a valid constitution be created by a totally unconstitutional act or acts?

Letter From James Madison to George Washington, 16 April 1787 (shows some of the intent behind the framing of the Constitution)

Creation of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION

The true meaning of the Constitution is to be found in what the people in the various State Ratification Conventions were told it meant before they agreed to ratify it as the law of the land. “PROPER SAFEGUARDS AND LIMITATIONS”

Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States. It was drafted by the Second Continental Congress from mid-1776 through late 1777, and ratification by all 13 states was completed by early 1781.

How did the Constitution Structure Our Government?

Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government we have, he said, “A Republic if you can keep it.”
Article IV, Section 4, guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
What is a Republic? It means that law governs man.
What is a Democracy or Oligarchy? Its when men govern each other by manipulating laws and statutes (what we have today).
In a Republic the squirrel would be protected by the Law and the Raccoon and Fox could not vote on having the squirrel for dinner.
We started being called a Democracy around 1913 by President Woodrow Wilson. He said the American people are unable to make good decisions for themselves so the Government needs to be able to make those decisions for them.
Plato said a Democracy passes into Despotism (a form of government by which a single entity rules with absolute and unlimited power)
Karl Marx said Democracy is the road to Socialism.

CONSTITUTIONS MUST BE CONSTRUED TO REFERENCE THE COMMON LAW SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL & VOID

“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and it was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.” 16Am Jur 2d. Sec. 114

The Original Constitution For The United States Of America was essentially dictated by the bankers and King George. If you look at article six in The Treaty of Paris 1783 you will see that all of the King's contracts in America were reaffirmed and put back in force after "the war".

The bankers contracts were also reaffirmed. When the States did not pay the banks or The Crown the European money power threatened to resume open hostilities. So Washington D.C. was created as a concession to delay the inevitable War On America by the banksters and European powers. (See Act of 1871)

The problem is that it was created with a split allegiance. On the one hand it was supposed to protect the newly Independent American States, on the other hand it was supposed to collect taxes and tribute for The British Crown and The Vatican. Very hard to serve two masters.

Eventually the bankers won out over the People of the States. Since 1871 the United States has not served the little people or even the landowners (people) anymore but has simply been helping itself to ever increasing portions of their labor and land.

So the Vatican, The Crown, and all of it's affiliated banks and corporations have a stranglehold on America today.

There are no more "electors" choosing a de jure government (republic). There are only "voters" voting for their union representative to "the corporation". All voters can do is beg The Crown Bankers for better "working" conditions and feudal (federal) employee benefits on this giant Plantation.

Have you read the book They Own it All? On paper the bankers have securitized everything, land, cars, houses, factories, water, air, minerals, wildlife, men, women, and children. They are collecting interest on the bonds they have put on all of us. In other words you are being held in bondage by the bankers. They promise your labor in the form of newly printed federal reserve notes that they print and pass out! Then they give this promises of your labor to someone who then give them back to you thus ordering you to give your masters a days "work". You are a debt slave. On Paper the bankers hold title to your lifetime labor. So they issue shares of your labor to pay THEIR debts and then you are "ordered" to work off their debts.

Of course the bankers never had any intention of leaving alone the newly formed United States of America. It is and was just too big of a goldmine to let alone. They won't withdraw their feeding tubes from us until we are completely sucked dry like Argentina, Greece, etc. and all of us and our children have been worked to the bone and are dead and cremated.

Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and the rest of the anti-federalists knew the banksters and lawyers would be the demise of our constitutional republic. So much so, they added Title of Nobility clause to the Constitution for the united States not once, but twice(once in article 1 section 9 and again with more teeth as the thirteenth amendment, ratified by thirteen of the first sixteen States in 1819).

As we see today, the banksters, with the help of their lawyer friends, they manipulated the laws and the market back then as well, creating the Great Panic of 1873, and continued their practice another twenty years later, resulting in the Great Panic of 1893.

After replacing the Titles of Nobility(thirteenth amendment) with the new one, they also eventually tricked the Nation into voluntary servitude with the Fourteenth Amendment. Their lust for wealth and power has no boundaries, their incremental usurpation of everything we hold dear is now coming to a head. You only need to watch the countless stories on our economy and unconstitutional mandates being handed down from "on high."

Gaddy claims you can find that the Corporation dates back to 1787. That's two years before the ratification of the Constitution.

By Thomas Monroe:

"The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for THEIR own government, and NOT for the government of the individual states.”

This quote is a portion of the decision statement by Chief Justice John Marshall in the Supreme Court case of Barron versus The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore in 1833.

"The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for THEIR own government, and NOT for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and, in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.”

Marshall clearly stated that the people of the United States is not the same as the people of the states and that the United States is to operate under the Constitution for the United States of America. The individual States are not. According to Marshall; that constitution was framed for the purpose of promoting the interests of those people; the people of the United States who were merely the delegates assembled under the Articles of Confederation.

In other words; that constitution was to be the governing factor to keep the Congress, the assembly of all of the delegates from the individual states, under the provisions which were set down in contract before the gathering of that Congress in order to legislate upon those provisions.

This statement also clearly grasps the fact the Congress was not a governing body of the people of the states. In fact; the only mentioning of government in relationship to the Congress were those of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18, whereas the government of the United States (the gathering of the Congress) shall have only lawful dominance over no more than 10 miles square (or one hundred square miles) as may by cession of particular states to that Congress, and also have dominance over property purchased by that Congress from the individual states for particular purposes. The government of that union, the Constitution, granted only the power to carry out the tasks assigned to it. No more and no less.

What were these interests that Marshall spoke of?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, in Order to establish Justice, in Order to insure domestic Tranquility, in Order to provide for the common defense, in Order to promote the general Welfare and in Order to secure the Blessings of Liberty.

A side note; liberty means basically the lack of legislation. It does not mean freedom. Freedom is protected when liberty prevails.

Their lawful interests were only to do all of the above for the union, not for the individual states but for the union. Their job was to keep the individual states connected in friendly commerce, basic interstate interaction and the defense of all states which were members of the union. Only when that Congress Acted with constitutional legislation to perform one or more of the tasks assigned to it did they possibly have the lawful power to have affect within a state, or all of the state’s, borders. Even then, until the thirteenth amendment; that Congress had no power to enter the state with the purpose of enforcement. We will cover that later.

We are taught in the government controlled indoctrination centers, better known as Public Schools, that the United States declared independence from Great Britain on July 4th 1776. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes; the state delegates did sign the Declaration of Independence but most of them signed after July 4th.

Our schools also teach us that the declaration proclaimed that the former thirteen colonies, then at war with Great Britain, were now a sovereign, independent nation. Again; this is a lie. That declaration very plainly states that:

“these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states”

At the time of declaring independence from Great Britain, the United States did not even exist. It was only upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation on March 1st, 1781, when Maryland signed the articles into law, that all thirteen independent states were in union under a confederacy and the style of that confederacy was to be known, per article 1, as the United States of America.

A confederacy is defined as persons, states or nations united by a league. Labeling the confederacy as being the United States of America did not combine the 13 colonies into one single nation. It only joined them in contract to be beneficial to each other in the union.

Upon disconnecting from England; the colonies found the necessity to draw up contracts within their own political bodies. These contracts, or constitutions as we know them, established each state and their respective governments. These contracts were generally set up and approved by the citizens of each of these colonies and since they were constitutions by the people of those, considered now to be, states; these states qualified as being recognized as individual sovereign republics.

Before July 4, 1776, four colonies had already not only declared their independence from England but they had already ratified their own constitutions which classified each of them as states and no longer colonies of England.

New Hampshire became a state on January 5, 1776, South Carolina on March 26, 1776, Virginia on June 29, 1776 and New Jersey on July 2, 1776.

In the four months after July 4th, three more colonies ratified their constitutions and became states. Delaware on September 21, 1776, Pennsylvania on September 28, 1776 and Maryland on November 11, 1776

North Carolina, became a State on December 18 making it the last for the year of 1776. Three more followed in the next year. Georgia on February 5, 1777, New York on April 20, 1777 and Vermont on July 8, 1777.

Massachusetts waited almost 3 more years before becoming a state on March 2, 1780.

Rhode Island did not have a constitution until November of 1842. I have a lot more research to do before it becomes clear to me as to: how could Rhode Island ratify the constitution for the United States of America on May 29 of 1790 if they were not a State? They were still operating under a Royal Charter at that time. Better yet; how could they have ratified the Articles of Confederation in 1778?

Randomly picking one of these original constitutions to read, New Hampshire’s, it is important to note several things within it. It not only institutes that the purpose of it was to establish some sort of government for New Hampshire; it is also important to note that it was written in many ways in the style of the later document; the constitution for the United States of America. Many people will say that the State constitutions were to be written in the style of the U. S. Constitution when in fact the U. S. Constitution was written in the styles of state constitutions already in existence.

It is also important to note that the constitution for the State of New Hampshire in 1776 did not place the people of New Hampshire under the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire Government. In fact; that constitution mostly constructed a government concerned with the safety of the people in regards to a legal system to protect them and provide recompense from those who caused harm. It also provided for the management of the Militias of the state and the ability to fund these duties which were assigned to that governmental body.

In May of 1787, 55 delegates from the already existing states of the union, the people of the United States, met in Philadelphia. In this meeting, the majority of them sanctioned to make an attempt to improve the Articles of Confederation. The mentioning of the general welfare in the preamble referred to only the union of the states as in to prevent future harm and disagreement which may cross from one state to another. Under the Articles of Confederation there was considerable and constant turmoil among the states.

Many people believe that the Articles of Confederation was a perpetual union among the colonies and could not lawfully be amended, revised or terminated. Perpetual in that contract, as in any contract, means only that it did not expire. Almost every contract ever written has either had an expiration date or some sort of exit clause. The word perpetual in that contract did not mean that if any state attempted to withdraw from the confederacy that the other member states would wage war upon them. It merely declares that the contract between states, the Articles of Confederation, had no expiration date. It would remain in affect lawfully until the last state pulled out from it.

When Rhode Island ratified the Constitution for the United States of America on May 29, 1790; the Articles of Confederation officially became extinct and it was made extinct through lawful process.

All 55 of these delegates looked to interject their own ideals of what they desired, or the ideals which their own state sought, in the construction of the new union. No matter what each of them wanted; what emerged from that convention is what was to be the law of the land.

39 of the attending delegates (and William Jackson, who was the secretary of the convention) signed the document and sent the document to each of the states for their approval, according to each state’s own constitutional process, with the hopes of it being ratified. The 39 signatures was more than 70 percent of the attendees.

Many during that time put inked quills to hemp and wrote long dissertations to persuade the people of the states to accept the contract as well as those who attempted to dissuade. Rhode Island did not attend the convention for a fear of a growing power by that Congress. If history has taught us anything; that convention and the reestablishment of the union between states has nothing to do with the power which the Congress wields today.

All Societies throughout history have leaned towards authorizing some governing entity the power to make decisions and assisted them in enforcing laws while believing that doing so made life easier. This society’s approval has demonstrated to be no different. The loss of liberty has been purely by the act of the masses. Time and time again, the people of these American States ignored the simplicity of the governing document for that Congress which granted no power to legislate; only the duty to perform tasks. One promised benefit after another enticed the ignorant masses to allow that Congress to step out of its cage and allowed its proclamations while assisting to enforce statutes upon their fellow citizens.

Over the last century and a half, the people of these American States have been conditioned to the idea that these 13 former colonies of Great Britain entered into a contract to subjugate themselves, again, to some higher lawful power. This is the most preposterous lie perpetrated against the citizens of the individual sovereign states. The people who lived within these states, who risked much personal wealth and who suffered the great loss of loved ones in order to free themselves of the bonds which Great Britain held them in for so many decades; would most certainly not have jumped right back into a position of servitude.

Even more preposterous is that the citizens of the states have canonized a phrase from that contract; claiming that it signified this subjugation in ratified ink, when in fact; it does no such thing.

Article 12:

“All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed and debts contracted by, or under the authority of congress, before the assembling of the united states, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the united states, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said united states, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.”

The Articles of Confederation offered the Congress no real teeth in collecting the debt owed to the treasury by the several States. The Congress under the Articles of Confederation only had the power to raise money to perform their duties by asking the states for funds or borrowing it from individuals and other governments. They had no lawful power to collect the funds from the states to pay the debt.

The new constitution changed that into the taxes being apportioned to the states according to the population of each state. The new constitution gave the Congress the power to tax trade between the individual states if that were necessary in order to pay the debt and fund the tasks which the Congress was assigned to perform for the states.

This clause, Clause 1 of Article VI, of the new constitution, only stated that any and all of the debts lawfully initiated and engaged in under the Articles of Confederation, or even before in pursuance of the union, shall not be dismissed or forgiven under the new constitution.

Clause 2:

“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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

This is the big clause in question. This is the clause which a multitude of people have trouble with comprehending its simplicity. We will take this clause apart phrase by phrase.

“this Constitution”, refers to this Constitution for the United States of America, the one containing this Clause and only it. It does not refer to any of the state’s constitutions. It does not dictate anything to the states as to the contents of their own constitutions.

“and the laws of the United States”, refers to the legislation produced by the United States. To properly recognize this phrase, the individual must first understand that the United States is not a country. The Articles of Confederation consistently refers to the United States as “the United States in Congress assembled”. The United States in this clause is not referring to the States and their own laws or their own constitutions; it is only referring to the laws legislated by the Congress of the United States when they are assembled for the purpose of legislation.

“which shall be made in pursuance thereof” refers to the legislation produced by the United States in Congress assembled while pursuing the performance of the tasks which were assigned to the Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing else other than the laws of the Congress of the United States in assembly legislating the necessary actions in order to perform the tasks assigned to the United States in Congress assembled to perform for the states is included in this statement. Nothing.

“and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States” means that any treaties entered into with other nations before the ratification of this constitution and after the ratification of it, provided they were made under the authority to do so as granted by this constitution or the Articles of Confederation before this constitution was ratified and were made according to the allowed procedures of both documents;

“shall be the supreme law of the land” means that those legislative acts are to be considered law within the union of states and within the boundaries of each of the states.

“and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby” means that the judges of the states must uphold any legislation of the Congress of the United States providing that the legislation is within the narrow boundaries of the United States in Congress Assembled as set within the confines of this constitution.

The Articles of Confederation only stated that the ratification of it contracted the states to bind themselves to the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled. This clause of this constitution declares that the lawful legislation emanating from this Congress would be Law of the Land.

“anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” No state constitution nor law of a state shall oppose any of the few powers granted to the United States in Congress assembled to legislate. No state constitution nor law of a state shall oppose any Act of Congress which falls within the limits of this constitution.

This does not in any way, shape or form dictate to the states that they must, by law, conform their constitutions to the structure of this one. It also does not dictate to the states that they must have a Bill of Individual Rights attached to their own constitutions which mirror the Bill of State Rights which is attached to the constitution for the United States of America. The people of each State should have a Bill of Rights attached to their state’s constitution and protect those words with everything they have but this clause does not dictate that they must.

Most of the state’s constitutions were already written and they were not lawfully subjugated by this clause.

The government owned school system has entrenched the idea into every student’s head that the United States stands in superiority over the individual states; that the states are under the jurisdiction thereof. They have infiltrated every mind with the idea that the founders and framers established a government which subjugated the states, their courts and their constitutions.

There is absolutely no basis to this lie for the fact is that there are no clauses within this constitution for the United States of America which implies any sort of superiority over the states. The constitution for the United States of America is under the jurisdiction of the states and the legislative branches of the states and the United States in Congress assembled is under the jurisdiction of that constitution.

What many people don’t seem to comprehend is that the so labeled “Bill of Rights” had nothing to do with the rights of the individual; it is actually an added on list of rights of the states. The first ten amendments to this constitution purely amended, each one singularly, a clause, or clauses, within that constitution because the words in that constitution covered too broad of scope and the states were not comfortable with it as it was originally written.

Amendment 10 amended this clause which so many mistakenly label as the Supremacy Clause. Amendment 10 declares that any other power other than what has been ratified to the United States in Congress Assembled in this constitution is completely in the hands of the states or in other words the people since the people are the states. In all other aspects of life where this constitution grants no power to legislate; the State Constitutions and the laws of the people of the states are superior to the laws emanating from the United States in Congress Assembled.

Clause 3:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Before the 13th Amendment; the United States Congress had no lawful power to enforce anything within the borders of the states which the Congress of the United States legislated upon and made into law. The few laws which they could produce in performing the listed tasks which they were assigned were to be carried out by the officers of the states and the state courts.

Each state ratified that each state would only allow officers, whether legislative or judicial, to take their positions if they swore to uphold the lawful legislation of the United States in Congress Assembled upon their own citizens.

If the people of these United States of America had, from the very beginning, understood true representative government; they would not have allowed their Congress to pass the 13th Amendment as it is worded. They should have never let the congress of the United States to have the power to enter their individual sovereign states with legislation to enforce for any purpose. Once that cat was let loose there was no stopping it on its road to complete domination of the states.

The last line of that clause: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” only dictates to the Congress, not to the states, that no office of the United States in Congress Assembled nor under that Congress shall require any sort of regulation of religion in order to hold the office or position.

From Michael Gaddy:

52 FAMOUS WORDS OF CONTENTION.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

From May of 1787 to the State Ratification Conventions, to a monumental debate in the United States Senate in 1833, the 52 words of the Preamble to the US Constitution has been a point of contention as to whether we were intended to have a National or a Constitutional Republic form of government. Patrick Henry would ask during the Virginia State Ratification Convention on 4 June 1788, the following reference the Preamble.

“I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.” It is important at this point that we remember Patrick Henry, who had been selected as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, chose not to attend stating, “I smell a rat leaning toward a Monarchy in Philadelphia.” Having not been in actual attendance, Henry would only have second hand information as to the proceedings there. But, it is of importance that we note Henry saw the Preamble as adopted as an introduction to a Nationalist rather than a Republican form of government.

The Preamble, as originally written by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, read as follows:

“We the People of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the government of Ourselves and our Posterity. *Elliot’s debates, Vol. 129

Five days before the convention in Philadelphia ended, Gouverneur Morris, leader of the Committee of Style, presented the Preamble as we now know it, condensing what he thought to be the salient points of the convention and eliminating the roll call of states because Rhode Island had not attended and presumably because Article VII of the Constitution only called for ratification by 9 states and of course there was no way of knowing what states would and what states would not ratify.

Morris, a self-proclaimed Nationalist, had previously presented a motion during the convention that deserves notice. According to records from the convention, “Gouverneur Morris moved that the reference of the plan (Constitution) be made to one General Convention, chosen and authorized by the people, to consider, amend and establish the same.”

Had this motion passed, our Constitution would have been ratified by “the people of the United States in the aggregate;” the very definition of a Nationalist form of government. It would have by-passed the States and gone directly to the people. The records show that Morris’s motion died for lack of a second. Therefore it was rejected out of hand. Morris and the other Nationalist/Monarchists were more than willing to do anything within their power to insert their desires into the Constitution, but were careful with the wording so as not to alarm those who demanded a federated form of government. In a personal letter after the convention, Morris would write the following,

“I always thought that when we should acquire Canada and Louisiana, it would be proper to govern them as provinces, and allow them no voice in our councils.

In wording the third section of the fourth Article I - Legislative Branch went as far as circumstances would permit to establish the exclusion. Candor obliges me to add my belief that, had it been more pointedly expressed, a strong opposition would have been made.”

Patrick Henry was not alone in his belief the Preamble was introductory to a National government. Samuel Adams, one of the original Sons of Liberty, Robert Whitehill of Pennsylvania and the Anti-Federalist who wrote under the name “Brutus” (most likely Robert Yates of NY) were in agreement with Henry’s assessment.

As always, the Nationalists posing as Federalists were quick to assuage the concerns of the Anti-Federalists with a volley of speeches and printed words. James Wilson of Pennsylvania would say during his states Ratification Convention:

So, why all this fuss over the wording of the Preamble, you ask? In a nationalist form of government there can be no nullification or secession. Senator Daniel Webster, Justice Joseph Story, and others played on the Northern position that our government was nationalist. The argument expressed concerning the Preamble “appeared in every speech, book, pamphlet, and discussion by every advocate for the North” according to author, Albert Taylor Bledsoe.

In the great senatorial debate between Daniel Webster from Massachusetts and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Webster stated the following:“The Constitution itself, in its very front declares that it was ordained and established by the People of the United States in the aggregate.”

This statement was absolutely false; Article VII which requires ratification by at least nine states is proof positive.

“The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.”

Nationalists; the “one nation…indivisible” folks, have, from the very beginning, resorted to deception and subterfuge in order to promote a form of government that could be used to grant them more and more power with fewer and fewer restriction on their actions by those whom they enslave.

Madison and Hamilton began the deception with their scam of going to Philadelphia to “amend the Articles of Confederation.” Having composed an entirely new plan for government prior to their arrival at the convention is absolute proof of their subterfuge.

This nationalist form of government, exactly the government we have in our country today, was further advanced with those in our history who also craved power and money and intended to use the force of government to advance their agenda. John Marshall used his position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to rule that the central government would always determine the extent of its own powers. Others like Senator Daniel Webster and Justice John Story would pervert the words of those who fought the Nationalists at the Constitutional Convention and the State Ratifying Conventions to forbid escape from their tyranny using Nullification and Secession.

Abraham Lincoln would use those inherited powers of Nationalism to kill over 700,000 of his own citizens as a lesson for future generations who might seek relief from the oppression of total personal, physical and financial slavery. Nationalists have endeavored to put lipstick on their oppressive pig by naming it a Democracy. Thus, the form of government we now live under is what Jefferson referred to as “mob rule;” a form of government many feared more than Monarchy.

As stated by Alexis de Tocqueville in Volume One Chapter XV of his magnum opus, Democracy in America, “The very essence of democratic government lives in the absolute sovereignty of the majority.” That is correct; in a Democracy only the majority is sovereign—all others are subject to mob rule.

Those in government control the majority to their advantage with promises of benefits and power, most often stolen from the minority who actually produce. Our current government is full of “Federalists” for the Anti-Federalists who would champion the Liberty and Freedom of Henry, Jefferson, Calhoun and others, are banished like the plague from both major political parties and the masses are convinced voting for anyone who espouses the virtues of the Anti-Federalist ideas of the founding era are “wasting their votes.”

Nationalism contains no “opt-out” provision; regardless of the tyranny imposed on the people, nationalism requires complete obedience to all its edicts whether the oppressions come in the form of unconstitutional laws, edicts from bureaucracies, asinine rulings from the courts or executive orders. Politicians and leaders from both political parties worship at the feet of previous Nationalist leaders. Just ask a Republican what they think of Lincoln or a Democrat their opinion of FDR. Therefore, supporting candidates from either party is by default support for a national form of government and a repudiation of the ideals of Jefferson, Henry and others known in history as Anti-Federalists.

George Will once said, “Americans like to quote Jefferson but we live in Hamilton’s country.” Americans claim they want a government as ratified by the States, (A Constitutional Republic with the power to negate unconstitutional laws and edicts) but they continually vote for Nationalists and robotically pledge allegiance to “one nation (national government) indivisible…(no recourse to tyranny) and teach their children to do the same.

The Courts have ruled that the government is NOT the protector of the constitution. If the government is not the protector of the constitution, then who is?

“It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” American Communications Ass’n v Douds, 339 U.S. 382,442

US Constitution

See Two Constitutions

Videos

Video: A Constitution That Encourages Good Character

Video: Can We Reconcile the Constitution and Big Government?

See Also: US Constitution, Two Constitutions ; 14th Amendment / Reconstruction Act ; Organic Act of 1871

Video: World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes lost her life soon after a series of interviews like this about the “secret constitution”

Articles of the Constitution