This isn’t something I’m proud to admit, but 30 years ago I couldn’t have told you anything about the Constitution other than it created the 3 branches of our government and supposedly had some kind of checks and balances within it. Like I said, I’m not proud of that fact, but I’m not ashamed of it either; it is what it is. Fast forward to now and I probably know more about that document than everyone within a 5 mile radius of me. Not bragging, as I said, it is what it is.
The funny thing about this is, I’ve barely scratched the surface in regards to what there is to learn. If there is one thing I have learned, however, it can best be summed up by something Albert Einstein once said, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.”
I would never have gotten to where I am today had it not been for the help and guidance of a few key people who entered into my life at crucial moments in my studies. One such individual was Mike Gaddy. I’d love to spend time discussing how much of an influence he has been, and how much I appreciate the little clues and snippets of information he has dangled in front of my nose for me to pursue; but now it not the time. What I do want to discuss is what I’ve learned after he dangled one such tantalizing tidbit of information in front of me.
Before I get to that I just want to make sure your memories are refreshed. If you recall, in my most recent ravings I’ve made the claim that I believe the Convention of 1787, or the Constitutional Convention as most people call it, was, in effect, a coup against the existing Confederation government.
Those who produced the Constitution of 1787 did so without having the authority to do anything other than come up with proposals for amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Not only that, once they’d written a document that would abolish the Confederation, they then dictated the terms by which the Constitution would be either adopted or rejected; a clear violation of the existing constitution, i.e. The Articles of Confederation.
The sad thing about all this is that instead of the Confederation Congress, and the State Legislatures telling them to stick their proposed Constitution where the sun doesn’t shine and went on with their lives as if the Convention of 1787 hadn’t even taken place. But they didn’t, and here we are, stuck with the consequences of a decision made 232 years ago.
The thing is, I knew all that from my own research, along with a few gentle nudges in the right direction from my friend Mike. What I didn’t know, or hadn’t given that much thought to, was who was behind this little coup. Sure, I knew the names of the major players in this drama, but I’d never really stopped to think about who they represented, or what specifically, whose interests they served when they did what they did.
That is the carrot that my friend Mike dangled in front of me; the tantalizing tidbit that led me down a pathway that I hadn’t even considered before. Twenty-four hours after the conversation that put me on that pathway I had an entirely new outlook on the Convention of 1787, and those behind it; and what I’ve learned is what I’m about to share with you.
Before I get down to the nitty gritty, let me provide you with a simple statistic to think about. In the year 1787 the population of the United States was around 3.9 million people. Seventy-four people were chosen to attend the Convention of 1787; out of which only 55 actually attended. For one reason or another, 19 delegates did not attend.
Now think about that for a minute. Fifty-five people were about to deliberate and make decisions that would affect millions of people. How could those 55 people know the needs, wants, and circumstances of every class of people out of a total population of 3.9 million people? Simple answer, they couldn’t. So the question we must ask ourselves is; whose interests did they serve while deliberating behind closed and locked doors?
The first step on this little journey began when Mike asked me who the delegates to the Convention of 1787; not their names, more like their bio’s; what professions they had and whose/what interests they might serve. To answer that I began researching the bio’s of those who did attend the convention, and I began to notice a disturbing trend. Then of course, Mike also aided my research by sending an e mail that better explained what I’d already begun to suspect.
Before I tell you the conclusion I came to, let me provide some data I discovered and let’s see if you notice the same thing that I did when I first started researching this.
James Madison was a delegate from the Commonwealth of Virginia, but he had been schooled in the North and picked up many of their bad habits and attitudes. Oh, and he was also a lawyer.
Alexander Hamilton was also a lawyer, and had close ties to both American and British banking interests.
William Blount, of South Carolina was one of those speculators I spent so much time disparaging in a recent rant.
John Rutledge, Oliver Ellsworth, Rufus King, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, and Edmund Randolph were all lawyers as well.
Then of course there was Robert Morris, who, it was claimed, single handedly financed the American Revolution. What isn’t widely known is that Morris was also guilty of embezzling, or at least defrauding the Confederation Congress out of a lot of money; millions in today’s currency. The essayist Centinel would later write a scathing condemnation of Morris; but that’s jumping too far forward for the time being.
The pattern I began to notice, which was later strengthened by Mike’s e mail was that those who attended this convention of schemers were closely tied to business and banking interests, with a good number of them being lawyers. Those who attended this convention seemed to be representative of the big urban centers and wealthy landowners, and not very representative at all of the common folk who made up the vast majority of the people in the U.S.; the very people who had taken up their arms and risked their lives so that America could be a free and independent country.
There are many titles that could be applied to those who attended the Convention of 1787 and pushed for this new, centralized system of government. Federalist’s is one of the terms which I’ve used in the past, and others might include Monarchists and Nationalists. For the sake of consistancy I will stick to calling them Nationalists from here forward.
Although this pattern was, in and of itself, cause for concern, it is what happened once these Nationalists got their wish, and their precious Constitution that went into effect causes that pattern to become even more disturbing.
Before I continue I feel I must explain what a constitution is. Had the public school system done its job and taught us this information, I wouldn’t have to; but, since the public school system failed to do so, I fear I must explain what a constitution is. However, instead of listening to me ramble on about it, let’s just let the words of Thomas Paine speak for me, “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.”
The Constitution, the one adopted in 1789, is not, nor was it ever, a document in which a government contracted with the people to give itself powers. It was an act of the people, (although in this case the people weren’t truly represented very well), by which they laid out the plans for a system of government; including the form it would take and the powers that it would be allowed to exercise on behalf of those who created it. Therefore, the government established by the Constitution could not alter, or increase the powers given it by those who had created it.
It is imperative that you grasp that principle as we continue…
Continuing my narrative, once the Constitution was ratified the system of government it outlined was put into effect/operation. The next question which was posed to me by my friend Mike was, who made up the first government? For the most part, those who comprised the very first government under the newly adopted Constitution were those who had supported its ratification; in other words, Nationalists.
George Washington, although he did not claim allegiance to any political party, was strongly Nationalist in his beliefs. Then again, and I could be wrong, I’ve come to believe that Washington was a puppet to Alexander Hamilton; someone who was in over his head in regards to his political savvy. However, that belief is affirmed by something Forrest McDonald wrote about Washington in his book, E Pluribus Unum, “Washington, at fifty-four (or at any other age), could have added little to the intellectual average of any convention, and his knowledge of what to do in one barely extended beyond rules of order. But that was all he needed to know, for any assembly he attended was likely to elect him presiding officer. He had two attributes that, even without his unparalleled prestige, prompted men to choose him The Leader; and it mattered not that one of the attributes was trivial and the other he carried to the point of triviality, nor did it matter that for the last third of his life he was largely (and self-consciously) playing a role. The first attribute was that he looked like a leader. In an age in which most Americans stood about five feet five and measured nearly three-fourths that around the waist, Washington stood six feet and had broad, powerful shoulders and slim hips; and he had learned the trick, when men said something beyond his ken, of looking at them in a way that made them feel irreverent or even stupid. The other attribute was personal integrity. At times, Washington’s integrity was bewildering, for his artlessness and his susceptibility to flattery led him to endorse actions that less scrupulous but more cagey men might shun; and at times it could be overbearing, stifling. But it was unimpeachable, and everyone knew it, and that, above all, made Washington useful. Others would do the brain work and the dirty work; Washington needed only to be there, but if there was to be a national government he absolutely had to be there, to lend his name to the doings.”
I know that sounds pretty disparaging towards the man who served his country as commander of the Continental Army, then went on to become our first President, but from what I’ve read about his administration, and how he listened more to Hamilton than he did his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, I am inclined to believe that those words are true.
So, not only was Washington Nationalist in his leanings, so was his Vice-President, John Adams; who would eventually be opposed by his own Vice-President, (Jefferson), once he became President.
So the Executive Branch was Nationalist in their political leanings. The Senate was even more so, with mostly lawyers and those who had close ties to big business and banking interests constituting the majority of the first Senate. Then, to put the icing on the cake for these Nationalists, they got to choose every member to the newly established Supreme Court, which is critical for my narrative.
While the Constitution was being argued among the people those who supported its ratification were forced to accept that some kind of Bill of Rights be adopted in order to gain the votes of certain states for ratification. So you would think that to satisfy those who had consented to implement their little plan for government that the first act of Congress would be to keep their promise and adopt a Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately that wasn’t what happened. What happened was that the Nationalists sought to immediately strengthen the power of the Judicial Branch by passing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which almost entirely rewrote Article 3 of the Constitution – a clear violation of their legislative authority. Of course, George Washington, being the Nationalist that he was, immediately signed it into law; making it the first official unconstitutional bill signed into law by a United States president.
Article III of the Constitution states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” So, it was within Congresses delegated authority to establish inferior courts, but it was not within their power to usurp the judicial power of the States, nor to grant the Judicial branch more power than was originally delegated it; which is exactly what the Judiciary Act of 1789 did. I could go into great detail regarding the intricacies of the Judicial Act of 1789, but then I’d end up writing a book instead of an essay. So I’ll try, (no promises), to keep this short.
The Constitution did give Congress the authority to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, which the Judiciary Act did do; establishing District and Circuit Courts. Unfortunately it did a whole lot more than just establish inferior courts.
For instance, in Section 9 of the Judiciary Act it states, “That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States.” I’m no legal expert, but that sure sounds like it gives these newly established inferior court’s jurisdiction, or supremacy, over the courts of the several states.
Then in Section 17 I read a whopper. You may have recalled me mentioning how jury nullification was an effective tool in staving off the advancement of tyranny. Well Section 17 says that those who show contempt for the authority of judges, (which I take to also include jurors) could be punished by a new trial held by one of these newly established federal courts, “And be it further enacted, That all the said courts of the United States shall have power to grant new trials, in cases where there has been a trial by jury for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law; and shall have power to impose and administer all necessary oaths or affirmations, and to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same.”
And then in Section 27 I read the biggest whopper of them all, these newly established courts were to have their own police force, “And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed in and for each district for the term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be to attend the district and circuit courts when sitting therein, and also the Supreme Court in the District in which that court shall sit. And to execute throughout the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States, and he shall have power to command all necessary assistance in the execution of his duty, and to appoint as there shall be occasion, one or more deputies, who shall be removable from office by the judge of the district court, or the circuit court sitting within the district, at the pleasure of either; and before he enters on the duties of his office, he shall become bound for the faithful performance of the same, by himself and by his deputies before the judge of the district court to the United States.” (My emphasis)
You may have recalled me recently providing numerous quotes from those who were labeled as Anti-Federalists regarding their opposition to the system of government outlined by the Constitution. Well here’s another such quote from Patrick Henry, “The officers of the [proposed Federal] government will be screened from punishment by the Federal judiciary. The federal sheriff will go into the poor man’s house and beat him or abuse his family, and the federal courts will protect him.” I don’t know about you, but it would sure seem that these federal marshals established by the Judiciary Act would be ‘screened from punishment by the Federal judiciary’; after all, they would be working under the orders given them by the selfsame judiciary.
In Section 34 they do make the disclaimer that, “And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply.” Unfortunately that disclaimer is only worth the ink it is written with if the government were to restrain itself to the specific powers delegated it, reserving all else to the states – which we know hasn’t been the case.
When Virginia was deciding whether or not to adopt the system of government outlined by the Constitution a great deal of time was spent arguing over the powers given to the federal judiciary, or the Supreme Court. In defense of those powers John Marshall, who would eventually become Chief Justice of this same Supreme Court, declared, “With respect to its cognizance in all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, he says that, the laws of the United States being paramount to the laws of the particular states, there is no case but what this will extend to. Has the government of the United States power to make laws on every subject? Does he understand it so? Can they make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims, between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard.”
It is ironic that Marshall would say that, because the very first act of Congress was to go beyond their delegated authority and completely re-write Article III of the Constitution; vastly expanding the power of the federal judiciary.
During the period that saw all this happening, Alexander Hamilton was busy trying to consolidate power within the federal government to serve the purposes he felt government should serve; purposes which were shot down during the convention that actually produced the Constitution. Hamilton wanted a strong standing army, something those opposed to the Constitution felt was a threat to liberty. He also sought to use the legislative, or for lack of better words, the coercive power of government to make those like him rich; in today’s words we might call these people one’s political base.
Think back to the professions of those who attended the Convention of 1787 and you’ll recall that many of them were merchants, bankers, speculators and wealthy land owners. Those were the people who formed the political base of the Federalist Party; those who I’ve assigned the name of Nationalists.
One of the things that Hamilton sought to do was to have the federal government assume the debts of the individual states; debts that had been accumulated during the Revolution. This too was a step beyond the specifically delegated powers given government by the Constitution, and was fought against by the Anti-Federalists until a compromise was met; the Anti-Federalists would agree to allow the government to assume the debts if the location of the, yet to be named seat of the federal government, be located further south than either Philadelphia or New York; a decision Thomas Jefferson would later regret making.
So let’s recap so far. First we have a bunch of lawyers, bankers and businessmen orchestrating a coup which saw the legitimate government abolished and one of their own creation taking is place. Next we see that the very first thing this new government did was to expand the power of the Judicial Branch of this government. Then finally, the powers given this new government was being used, not to serve the common people who this Constitution had promised to secure justice to, but to make those who wrote it, and pushed for its adoption filthy rich.
Sound good so far? Oh, but this only gets better…
By the time the second Federalist President, John Adams, was coming up for re-election inflation in the United States had increased to around 80%…79% to be exact. Although big business and banking was happy, some of the people weren’t so happy with the direction this new system of government had taken. So a change was in the wind, and it appeared that the former Anti-Federalists, which were now called, Democratic-Republicans, were gaining support and may win the presidential election coming up in 1800.
At the head of this new Democratic-Republican party was none other than Thomas Jefferson, who had fought against Hamilton and his cronies since being appointed to Washington’s cabinet as Secretary of State. Even so, after having his advice and counsel fall upon the deaf ears of President Washington, he resigned his position and retired to his home at Monticello. Then, while serving as Vice-President under John Adams, he and Adams, who had once been close friends in the cause of liberty, split due to the direction President Adams was taking the government.
The possible election of Thomas Jefferson was a threat to the power these Nationalists had consolidated. I’ve mentioned in other articles how Oliver Ellsworth and Rufus King had suggested a division of the Union because the North-Eastern States would never submit to the policies of a government led by a Southerner, so that is one bit of evidence that shows that they felt the policy of limited government espoused by men like Jefferson was a threat to their Nationalist agenda.
But then President Adams took the low road and sought to undermine the power of incoming President Thomas Jefferson. As we all know, the results of an election are decided in November, yet the transfer of power does not take place until January. This period is known as a lame duck presidency; a period when the successor to the presidency has already been chosen, and the existing president’s power is less than normal.
During this period in President Adam’s tenure in office he decided to stack the courts with Nationalist judges in the hopes that they would diminish the power of incoming president Jefferson. Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted something similar in 1937 with the proposed Judicial Procedures Reform Bill.
Serving as Secretary of State under outgoing President Adams was none other than John Marshall, who in the Virginia Ratifying debates had ensured his fellow delegates that the Judiciary would not threaten the authority of the State Courts. For one reason or another, Secretary of State Marshall did not deliver all the letters of appointment to these new judges.
Then in comes Thomas Jefferson, and appoints James Madison as his Secretary of State, (one of the many instances in which Madison switched positions, or sides). Jefferson orders Madison to halt delivery of these final appointments to the court, which leads William Marbury, one of those appointees, to sue.
Now here is where it gets a bit complicated. During Adam’s tenure as a lame duck president the existing Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Oliver Ellsworth, resigned due to ill health. Adams, in a panic I assume, chose to nominate John Jay, another strong Nationalist. But Jay refused the nomination because he felt the power of the federal judiciary had been diminished. Can you believe that? He refused because he wouldn’t have ENOUGH power as Chief Justice!
So Adams, pulling out what little hair he had left, nominated none other than John Marshall. Marshall was quickly approved, as the Nationalists still controlled government and wanted one of their own as Chief Justice. This sets the stage for what happened next.
As I said, William Marbury sued to get his appointment letter, a letter that Jefferson refused to have delivered to him. The case ended up in the Supreme Court, of which John Marshall was the Chief Justice of. Now if you remember, it was this same John Marshall who had failed to deliver Marbury’s letter of appointment; so Marshall should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Yet Marshall didn’t do what was right, instead he chose to sit and decide the outcome of a case in which he was a party to.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Marbury v Madison is heralded as a landmark case in which the SCOTUS decided that IT has the authority to decide the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. How Marshall did this was by claiming that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III of the Constitution; therefore Marshall claimed that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. This established the precedent of Judicial Review; where the SCOTUS gave itself, and not those who had adopted the Constitution, the power to decide what laws were, and which weren’t constitutional.
In a letter to Abigail Adams, Jefferson would voice his thoughts on the case of Marbury v Madison, “BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” Yet from the very beginning, before the Constitution was even adopted, that had been the intent of those who drafted it; create a system of government with its own judiciary, which could then determine the limits to its own power.
If that does not cause you to withdraw all your support for this system of government, and the document that established it, then I don’t know what will. But it gets even more interesting.
While Jefferson was serving as President one of the Nationalist judges serving as Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase, was a frequent, and outspoken opponent of the policies of the Jefferson administration. One of the things that angered Chase was the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, which unseated many Nationalist judges.
Chase was using his position on the Supreme Court as a platform to push for Nationalist candidates and a Nationalist agenda. In 1804 the House of Representatives brought up charges of impeachment against Samuel Chase. For instance, the 8th Article of impeachment declared, “The said Samuel Chase, disregarding the duties and dignity of his judicial character, did, at a circuit court, for the District of Maryland, held in Baltimore, in the month of May, 1803, pervert his official right and duty to address the grand jury then and there assembled, on the matters coming within the province of the said jury, for the purpose of delivering to the said grand jury an intemperate and inflammatory political harangue, with intent to excite the fears and resentment of the grand jury, and of the good people of Maryland against their state government, and constitution.” If ever a charge of sedition existed, that would be the defining characteristic of it.
Yet the Senate, either could not, or would not convict Chase on any of the 8 charges leveled against him, leading Thomas Jefferson to later lament, “Having found from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scarecrow, they [the Judiciary] consider themselves secure for life.” (Source: Letter to Thomas Ritchie, 1820)
Clinton was never impeached, even though there were serious allegations leveled against him. Instead his impeachment proceedings turned into a circus sideshow focused on his sexual escapades with Monica Lewinski.
I think the Trump impeachment proceedings are of the same nature, a circus used to keep the two political sides at odds against each other, while government as an entity keeps on keeping on with business as usual; which means making the base of both parties filthy rich.
Just look at government today. We have a standing army, both a military and a militarized federal and local law enforcement one; each willing and ready to enforce whatever decrees which come down on high from their masters; Congress and the President. The Constitution no longer limits the powers given government, that is done by Supreme Court rulings, leaving the will of the governed completely at the mercy of whatever side of the issue the SCOTUS comes down upon.
Politicians serve special interests more than they do us, which means they pass laws and enact regulations that benefit those special interests more than they do us. Our foreign policy is dictated by the military industrial complex; something we were warned about as recently as the late 1950’s with outgoing president Eisenhower’s speech about the rising military industrial complex. The Food and Drug Administration rubber stamps approval for drugs that are worse for us than the illnesses they claim to treat. The DEA enforces laws that tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies; a clear infringement upon our liberty. The BATF enforces laws the deprive us of our right to keep and bear arms. The TSA and NSA have shredded the 4th Amendment with their unlawful searches upon us, and their invasive surveillance of our electronic communications.
Need I go on? But by God, if we vote this asshole out and our guy in everything is going to be just Hunky Dory in the land of the free. Please, don’t be that damned naive and ignorant! This government is evil, it is corrupt, and anyone who has an ounce of love and respect for their liberty should be raising their voice in opposition to it.
This government IS the final outcome of what those who drafted it envisioned, and if all I’ve written over the past couple months haven’t clearly proven that then there is absolutely no hope that you’ll ever see the light.
The only way we’ll ever restore America to the principles it was founded upon in 1776 is to excise the cancer that is eating away at our rights and our liberty; the United States government. It was created in secret to overthrow the existing government, and from day 1 of its existence has sought to increase its own power, while diminishing that which was held by the States, with a corresponding loss of liberty for the people it claims to serve.
I know these recent articles have been long, and they’ve been more complicated than the ones you are used to. I look at it this way, when you begin school you are taught the alphabet. Then, as you progress, you are taught to write simple sentences. You then go on to forming paragraphs, from which you advance to writing essays or books.
Well, I’m here writing books and most of the people in this country are still struggling with the alphabet; the basic concepts of liberty and limited government.
The funny/sad thing is, I left out a lot of what I wanted to discuss for fear of tiring you, or hitting you with info you just weren’t ready for yet. But, for bonus material for those who have made it to the end of this rant, here are a few other things you may want to think about.
I would hope that most of you know that for a lawyer to practice law here in the U.S. they have to take a bar exam which proved they have learned the law to a sufficient extent that they are capable of representing their clients in court. But, do you know what the acronym BAR stand for? The word bar stands for British Accredited Registry and comes from back in 1600’s when it was first introduced in London. In 1761 the first BAR association was established in Boston, so that the Crown would only allow those lawyers who were given permission to practice law could defend clients in British run courts.
Are you aware that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution states, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Well if you weren’t you are now.
Are you then aware that when someone passes their bar exam and becomes an accredited lawyer they are given the title of ‘esquire’; which then is a title of nobility by a British run Accrediting Agency…or a foreign state?
So according to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution each and every lawyer must have the permission of Congress before they are given the title of ‘esquire’; which tends to lend support to my claim that this system of government was created by, and serves lawyers and other wealthy interests.
To make matters even more interesting, are you aware that a constitutional amendment was in the works prior to the Civil War which would have severely restricted a lawyers ability to hold any position whatsoever under the Constitution? Like I said a few moments ago, if you didn’t know, you do now.
Known as the TONA Amendment, or Titles of Nobility Amendment, it would have, not only not allowed them to hold any position in government, it would have stripped them of their citizenship, “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
I’m not making this up, you can Google it for yourself if you don’t believe me. Twice, both in 1812 and in 1816, this amendment was within 2 votes of being ratified by the required number of States. As constitutional amendments have no deadline imposed upon their ratification, should 26 states now decide to vote in favor of this amendment, it WOULD become part of the constitution, and deprive every lawyer in America of their citizenship, making them ineligible for office under government.
Think about that for a minute, no shyster lawyers in politics; what a marvelous thing that would be.
But none of what I have just said matters. I’ll be lucky if 1% of the people read and agree with it; the other 99% will go on with their lives being totally apathetic to what’s going on around them, or support one of the two political parties; meaning support and consent to the idea of being governed by a system where their only limitations upon their power is their own evil imaginations.
So go ahead, while you still struggle with the alphabet, I’m gonna pick up another novel and see what else I can learn. Maybe sometime in the future posterity will awaken and realize that there were a few of us who tried to warn people what was happening, and they will develop a spine and rise up against this evil that most Americans willing consent to and support – their own government.
With that said, have a very pleasant day…