Do you know the definition for the word fact? A fact, simply stated, is something that is undeniably true. For instance, it is a fact that in an open container water will boil when it reaches 212° Fahrenheit. The reverse is also true; at 32° water will freeze. The thing about facts is that, no matter how much you argue against them, they remain constant.
In 1770 a group of British Soldiers fired into a crowd in the city of Boston, causing a great deal of outrage among the citizens of that city. A trial was held, with the charges of manslaughter being brought against those accused of killing innocent citizens. Future president John Adams defended those charged with the crime of murder, and in his closing arguments made the following statement, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
In the English language there are things known as synonyms and antonyms. A synonym is a word that has the same meaning, or is similar in meaning to another word. An antonym, on the other hand, is a word that has the exact opposite meaning of the word being discussed. According to the handy dandy Thesaurus included in Microsoft Word, a few synonyms for the word fact are reality and truth. By chance, can you ponder a guess as to what you might find were you to look up the antonym for fact? Two of the words I found most frequently associated with the antonym for fact are fabrication and lie.
Let me come right out and say it, emotions are not facts. Sure, it may be a fact that you are angry, or emotional, but those emotions cannot be used as the sole means of justifying, or supporting your position on an issue; you need facts as well, otherwise your argument is nothing more than an emotional rant and should not be taken seriously. If you want people to give your position on an issue any credence you must be able to provide facts to support it. Even then, as I have found out to my own frustration, there will be those who ignore the facts; choosing instead to go on believing lies.
What I would like to do now is to present a series of facts and let you ponder them.
FACT: The first settlers to the region which we now call Massachusetts arrived they were not Americans; they were British subjects who were granted permission to establish British Colonies within what would later become the United States.
The very first political document written in the new colonies was the Mayflower Compact, which verified this relationship between them and their Sovereign, “We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia…” Not only do they declare their allegiance to the King of England, but they proclaim that their purpose in establishing this Colony was for the advancement of the Christian Faith.
Even Thomas Jefferson considered himself a British subject; as in when he wrote his Summary View of the Rights of British America. During the beginning of the period which led to the Revolution our Founders did not seek independence, they sought reconciliation; a restoration of the rights they felt had been violated by their King. It was not until they had suffered repeated injuries, without any redress from the King, that they were left with no other option but to seek independence.
FACT: Government, in whatever shape it may take, is a creation of man and can therefore have no more power than the creators bestowed upon it.
In his 1791 book The Rights of Man, Thomas Paine, (whose book Common Sense inflamed the hearts and minds of many patriots towards independence), states, “It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom to say that Government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.”
Also, in John Locke’s Second Treatise, a book which formed the political basis upon which many of our Founders formed their beliefs, we read the following about the power which government may exercise over those they govern, “Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being, or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every common-wealth; yet, First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community.”
FACT: The American Revolution was not a war between Britain and the United States; it was a rebellion by the governed against their system of government which they believed had become oppressive.
When Thomas Jefferson was tasked with writing our Declaration of Independence he chose each word and phrase carefully to write what is, in my honest opinion, the most eloquent document regarding the nature of our rights and the relationship between man and their system of government. In that document Jefferson states, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
Jefferson did not accuse the British people of these injuries, he laid them at the feet of the head of their government; the King of Great Britain, George III. The uprising and rebellion was not against the British people, nor did the Colonists seek conquest or riches, they only sought independence from a tyrant and the ability to establish their own system of government which would “…seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”
Sure, the war was fought between the Redcoats and the Patriots who sought independence, but those Redcoats would not have come had their King not ordered them to go restore order and stop the rebellious Colonists from disobeying his laws.
FACT: When the Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and the war wound down to its conclusion, the Unites States, as we know it today, did not exist. Instead, each Colony, or State, became a free and independent nation unto itself.
In 1783 delegates from the Colonies and the Crown gathered together in Paris to formalize peace between the two countries. A treaty was written, and agreed to by parties from both sides, including John Adams, John Jay and Benjamin Franklin from the Colonies. The first Article of that treaty states, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States…”
Now I have used sovereign and sovereignty frequently in my writings, but I am not certain that everyone understands the importance of that word. Sovereignty is defined as the absolute or supreme authority or power. Each State, with its own system of government, was sovereign and independent from the others and able to pass laws which affected only those residing within their State.
Pennsylvania could not pass laws which affected the people of Virginia, and vice versa. Each State was free to regulate their own internal affairs and pass whatever laws they felt were necessary to benefit their State.
FACT: Although the King recognized the States as sovereign and independent, they were not the true sovereigns of the country; the people were.
As I have already shown, government did not just will itself into existence, the powers it held was either somehow created by the people, or assumed by certain members of society. Therefore, if the States were sovereign and independent from each other, they were not sovereign over the people within the States themselves, as those governments must have been created by the people residing within the States.
In 1793 The Supreme Court heard the case of Chisholm v. Georgia. In their ruling they made the following comments, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”
Therefore, all political power in this country is both held by, and flows from the people, not any form of government they may create. This was a fact established also by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
I think, therefore, we can lie to rest the question of who holds the true political power in this country, the people or the government. The people created government, and if they created it, they can, at a later date, tear it down.
FACT: The Constitution was created by fraud and put into effect illegally.
Prior to the adoption of our Constitution we already had a rudimentary system of government in place; outlined by the Articles of Confederation. The system outlined by this document was a confederation, or a loose union of sovereignties which granted a Congress certain powers to act on their behalf. This was expressed in Articles 2 & 3 of the Articles of Confederation, wherein Article 3 declares, “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.”
However, it is Article 13 to which I would like to direct your attention. Article 13 declares, “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” (My emphasis)
In 1787 a convention was held in Philadelphia, with the delegates being sent by their States to do just that, alter, or amend the Articles of Confederation…nothing more. However, there were those who felt that the government outlined by the Articles of Confederation was weak and ineffective, and they sought to establish a much stronger system of government to replace it.
This flagrant violation of the authority granted the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention was of such a nature that 3 delegates refused to sign the finished document and two others, Robert Yates and John Lansing from New York, left the convention before a finished document could be produced.
Not only were the delegates called to Philadelphia under false pretenses, the means by which the Constitution was adopted violated Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation. The law, as it existed back then, declared that for any changes to be made to the Articles of Confederation it must be voted upon and agreed to by each State. I would say tossing the Articles of Confederation into the waste heap and replacing them with a Constitution qualified as a pretty radical change. Not only that, but the proposed Constitution was adopted under terms found within it. How can a document that nobody has agreed to yet dictate the means by which it was accepted? So, instead of a unanimous vote of support for the Constitution, it only required 3/4 of the States to vote yes upon its adoption for it to go into effect.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds highly suspicious to me.
FACT: The Constitution is a law, and therefore those who violate it are criminals.
Yes I know, I just railed against the Constitution, but since it is commonly accepted as having been lawfully ratified, and since it is the document that produced the system of government we have today, I think it best we discuss what, in fact, it is. Let me begin by saying what it is not; it is NOT a list of suggestions or recommendations.
I think it is best if I let Thomas Paine explain what exactly a Constitution is. So again, from his book The Rights of Man, here is Thomas Paine on constitutions, “A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.”
But there is more. In 1866 the Supreme Court delivered the following ruling regarding the nature and status of our Constitution, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”
Not only is our Constitution a law which those we elect take an oath to uphold, it is a law which restricts us from asking our representatives in the government it establishes from doing things which the Constitution does not expressly give them the authority to do.
I now have a question for you. What is the word you use to describe for someone who violates the law? Could your answer to that question possibly be the word criminal? Well then, if the Constitution is indeed a law, and it applies equally to those whom we elect and to ourselves when we seek our government to enact laws on our behalf, if we violate the terms expressly laid out within the Constitution, or seek to give to one branch powers it was never intended it possess, are we not acting criminally?
Don’t you find it just a tad bit funny that our government can pass all manner of laws, placing fines and jail time as punishment for their violation, yet the Constitution, being the Supreme Law of the Land, has no penalties attached to it for those who violate it?
On June 7, 1788 Patrick Henry addressed this very issue in a rousing speech delivered to the Virginia Assembly chosen to accept or reject the Constitution, “Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”
If we do not adhere to the limits imposed upon government by the Constitution, how can we expect those we elect to do so? If nobody adheres to the Constitution, what is the use in having a Constitution? Why do we not come out and admit we have an Oligarchy, a Collective Dictatorship, or whatever name you wish to assign to our government. But to go on believing we have the type government outlined by that document is to go on believing a lie; and by your participating in choosing whom will fill the various seats of power within that government you are giving your consent to the unconstitutional laws it passes; not matter if they are passed by your party or the other guys.
FACT: No people are bound for eternity under any system of government.
This fact should not require any explanation, but I fear it does. How can any generation decide for posterity how they should be governed? If the concept that one generation can decide how following generations are to be governed, then upon what principle did our Founders seek independence from the Crown; upon what principle were the Articles of Confederation replaced by our Constitution?
Thomas Jefferson expressed this belief in a letter to James Madison, wherein he states, “We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”
Was this not the very principle expressed in our Declaration of Independence, “That whenever ANY Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (My emphasis)
Even Abraham Lincoln, who 13 years later would change his position when the South exercised their right to leave the Union, said the following in 1848, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.”
Whether the sole reason the South left the Union was slavery, or if it was a combination of things that led them to sever ties to the Union, it does not matter; it was their right to do so. Abraham Lincoln used force to compel their obedience and over half a million people died and the Southern economy and infrastructure was devastated. Not to mention the years of suffering under the rule of Northern established government and carpetbaggers.
All this because Lincoln denied the very right which gave birth to our nation and decided that the creation of the people was greater than the will of the people.
We have not had a Constitutional form of government since the Civil War. Since the end of that use of military force by our government to impose its will upon a segment of the Union our government has continued to amass more and more power and authority over our lives. We take these small encroachments for granted because we have lived our entire lives under an unconstitutional form of government…because we are ignorant of the truth.
People go to the polls and cast their votes for whomever they believe will best lead this country without the slightest regard for the limits the Constitution imposes upon them. Then, when someone such as myself exercises my right to not participate in the fraud of choosing which dictator I want to violate my rights, I am told that I lose my right to complain about the state of affairs in America. That is absolutely ludicrous, as those who are ignorant of the limits imposed upon our government are the ones responsible for electing people who routinely violate their oaths of office to support the Constitution.
Yet our country was founded by people who stood up to government, not those who meekly followed all orders given them. Our country was founded by those who understood what liberty meant, and who were willing to die securing it for themselves and for their posterity.
You can call me whatever names you want because I no longer support our government in any of its endeavors, I’ll gladly accept the insults; for I consider myself to be in good company. Were they alive today, it is my firm belief that I would be standing side by side with Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson. The facts support my belief and my position, what supports yours?