Skip to comments.On Sovereignty
Posted on 09/25/2012 4:07:21 PM PDT by Brett L. Baker
We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Are we in the United States sovereign individuals? I believe we are according to the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this treatise is to investigate and expose the principals of not only what it means to be sovereign, but of sovereignty in general and whether the U.S. Constitution actually guarantees the individual sovereign status. This discourse will touch on the differences between republicanism, democracy and the actual make-up of the United States with regard to the U.S. Constitution as well as the beliefs of our founding fathers.
What is sovereignty? Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd Ed. defines sovereignty, The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived. By definition, sovereignty gives the ownership of power; ultimate political power to determine; preeminent direction over the make-up and structure of not only the government, but the administration of the government as well; the provision for one to supply for his own needs, sans external assistance; and the source of our ability to act with regard to politics.
According to 1215.org Lawnotes, A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. This may seem like a very small distinction, but the difference is great. The individuals sovereign status cannot be taken by the majority in a republic, with the exception in the U.S. being 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy. But, in a democracy, The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority. A republic is, That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. A Democracy is, That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. So, In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think.
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. Article VI, Clause 2 states, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. As unequivocally stated in the U.S. Constitution, the sovereign power which is vested in the people through Republicanism is guaranteed by the supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States. There can be no doubt, our forefathers, believed in the sovereign individual or the U.S. Constitution would clearly state, we the people of the United States are a democracy. Yet nowhere within the U.S. Constitution is the word democracy even mentioned.
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain government.
Are our Constitution and our sovereignty inviolate? I would argue, by Law, i.e., the U.S. Constitution, and by definition, our possession of sovereign power; the answer is undeniably yes, both are inviolate. But if you look not only at our modern day society, but to some of the founding fathers themselves, it is obvious there is a debate on this issue. Modern day discussions involve such matters as the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has Ruled the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense, in District of Columbia v. Heller. In United States v. Cruikshank, the courts view was the 2nd Amendment Has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government. Of course, one case (D.C. v. Heller) wasnt for a criminal enterprise, while the other (U.S. v. Cruikshank) was. Yet what is interesting is the wording, Has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government. But in the case United States v. Miller, Mr. Miller and another person Were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Mr. Millers argument was, That the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court agreed with Mr. Miller, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision. The reasoning was, The absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Obviously, one has the tendency to believe none of the Supreme Court justices at the time, had ever been in the military. I can only believe with regard to Mr. Millers case, as well as present day politics, We the People may as well refer to the Supreme Court as Nine Empty Chairs.
Unlike the U.S. governments belief in dictatorship, whether its Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Federal, State or Local, I personally believe, as I believe many of the founding fathers of this nation believed, the government needs to be restrained by the people for good reason; they cannot be trusted. Lets take 12 of the founding fathers of the nation - 6 truly believed in a Republican form of government; Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Mason, Wilson and Randolph, but 6 truly believed in a Federalist form of government; Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Morris, Sherman and Jay. Which 6 were correct and which 6 werent? All 12 men believed in the U.S. Constitution, the Federalists simply believed in a stronger national government while the others believed in more of a Republican form of government where the individual and not the government maintained the most power. Yet to the British, they were all traitors, and none of the founding fathers of this nation believed in an overreaching government or wanted one. The men who fought for Independence risked their lives, families, wealth, property and their positions for Liberty and Freedom. Now we have just the opposite. We live in a country which is governed by force, the people are fed lies, the economy is a joke, our foreign policy is that of murder and our so-called elected officials are what appear to be Satanists who thrive on killing in order to satiate their thirst for blood.
Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
Just exactly what the etymology of sovereign or sovereignty is, is also a matter of debate, which I will not go into. I have no doubt the Supreme Court or any other court in this nation would argue I know nothing, but what I do know for a fact, is the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution, ordained, established and ratified it, for the people. But the Hussein Obama administration and the rest of our self-centered narcissistic leaders have apparently once again proved their love for Liberty, Freedom and the People of the United States by awarding ATK a contract to supply 450,000,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security! By all appearances, the U.S. government doesnt believe in the sovereign individual.
James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers No. 37, Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form. In Federalist No. 39, Madison posed the question and gave the answer, Whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. The individual citizen is guaranteed a Republican form of government by the U.S. Constitution, so why does the individual who is guaranteed sovereign status by the Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, have to seek remedy before the court with regard to his sovereign status? Has the Judicial branch of government violated the very Law which they have taken an Oath to defend, protect and preserve; the U.S. Constitution? The obvious answer is yes, but the Supreme Court with their life-time appointments have, in effect, furtively elevated themselves to what they consider to be the level of Godhead.
It is not only his right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
Has the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution been misconstrued and ill applied by the courts? The true purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure a Constitutionally guaranteed right was not abridged, such as States enacting Jim Crow Laws which were portrayed as separate but equal but were in effect, separate and extremely unequal in order to circumvent the 13th Amendment. But isnt the 14th Amendment which should be viewed as basic fundamental fairness viewed as Federal supersedes State instead? Federal should only supersede State when the Constitutionally guaranteed right of the sovereign individual has been violated by the State or for example, if by some strange reason the State of North Dakota decided to invade South Dakota or either of the Provinces of Saskatchewan or Manitoba. The Federal role in this is merely to assure the State cannot violate the individual or the U.S. Constitution, the Federal government has no authority to decide how the individual exercises freedom, nor does the State, unless the individual has committed crimes.
If you consider the fact that in a Republic it is the guarantee given in the U.S. Constitution, that the individual is sovereign and the State is sovereign, the Federal government cannot take away that guarantee; the tail cannot wag the dog, as the Federal government is nothing more than the tail and We the People, which make up the States, are the dog itself. The hierarchies within the United States are the sovereign individuals, which make the sovereign States, which in turn make up the sovereign Nation. The power and responsibility within a Republic is vested in the People, not the government; who serve only at our pleasure. Picture if you will, a pyramid. The triangular point at the top is the Federal governments three branches, the middle portion would be the States and the bottom portion would be the People. In a democracy, this would be an accurate depiction of the power structure. But in a Republic, where the People are guaranteed a Republican form of government, where the individuals are sovereign and the States are sovereign, the pyramid must be inverted. The portion or base which is now at the top is the People, the middle portion is the States and the bottom triangular portion is the Federal government. Everything flows down to the State and to the Federal levels through the People. And as the People are the power of the United States, it is our duty to ensure the government, whether State or Federal, are defending, protecting, preserving and furthering the U.S. Constitution which is the Law of the Land or they need to be removed and held accountable for their actions.
But the usurpers of the Republic of the United States are the government officials at every level. They have done nothing more than attempt to destroy our Law, the U.S. Constitution, and this has been done in many ways. The manipulation of our monetary policy; a weak dollar, low interest rates, excessive debt, unchecked spending, the surreptitious voiding of the gold standard and the creation of a worthless fiat currency, as well as voodoo economics where the belief that wealth trickles down to the people, when the wealth actually trickles down to the State and Federal governments from the people. The destruction to our Law has also occurred through a very destructive and misguided foreign policy agenda which clearly debilitates our nations stature as well as our wealth, and has an appearance not based on anything which has any semblance of peaceful diplomacy. The national policy of the United States is one which appears to be, and is in effect, governance by force.
So, are we in the United States sovereign individuals? I believe we are supposed to be, according to the founding fathers of this nation, but in reality, we are slaves to the Federal and State governments. Are we a sovereign nation? Once again, I believe we are supposed to be, according to the founding fathers, but in reality, our so-called leaders are really nothing more than puppets of the Illuminati; the destroyers of men and nations and the proponents of a one-world government or New World Order, where no man is Free and Liberty is non-existent.
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat, in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers. Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.
This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
God Bless the United States of America. Completed on this 25th day of July in the year of our Lord 2012.
Brett L. Baker
If we’re sovereign why can’t we overthrow the Constitution?
Symbiotic sovereignty and mutual affinity necessitate written ground rules. Don’t like the ground rules? Leave.
“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
- Abraham Lincoln
That is a very, very appropriate message for our times. I can think of quite a few men that need overthrowing.
Just exactly why would you want to overthrow the U.S. Constitution? It is one of the finest documents ever created by man. From your response, I would have to guess you hate the United States, you hate the Law of the Land and you probably hate the American people.
Perhaps you should attempt to give some reasons as to why you would want to overthrow such a great document.
When we didn’t like Britain’s groundrules we didn’t leave. We made them leave.
What is this “symbiotic sovereignty,” anyway? It was always, and according to the thread topic still is, the people who are sovereign. As far as I know popular sovereignty means I’m sovereign. That is, me. So talk all you want about “mutual affinity,” but that’s not popular sovereignty. It includes the right to rebel and no treason or it means nothing.
By the way, I don’t believe in it either, though I find it useful. It feels good to say so out in the open.
“why would you want to overthrow the U.S. Constitution?”
I don’t, but can think of reasons. No one abides it, for one. But the point is I don’t need a reason. Not if I’m sovereign. Sovereignty is inalienable, and if I have it, it cannot be sacrificed to the Constitution. Certainly not by a minority of the population hundreds of years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.