Editorial: Oct. 7, 2009 — Endemic Corruption and what to do about it

by John Charlton

We face a plague of endemic corruption in America; endemic because widespread and infecting every branch of government; corruption because it has perverted the purpose of the authorities created by the U.S. Constitution to uphold that constitution; a plague, because it is destroying the nation.

Citizens have filed suit; they have petitioned Electors; they have written, faxed, emailed, called, and even, you might say, harassed their elected representatives.

But the Courts have refused to hear the cases or denied them for specious reasons; the Electors ignored them; the Congressmen dismissed them as ignorant or mistaken.

Yet such a massive conspiracy cannot hide the facts of the case:

1) Barack Hussein Obama has claimed Barrack Hussein Obama Sr., as his father.

2) Barrack Hussein Obama Sr., was a british subject at the time of Obama Jr.’s alleged birth day, of Aug. 4, 1961; and was always either a british subject, or citizen of Kenya.

3) Article II, Section i, paragraph 5, of the United States Constitution reads:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

4. Four Supreme Court Cases cite the definition of a natural born citizen:

A native or natural born citizen is one born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Nor can the logical and legal conclusion be ignored, despite all the ridicule and excuses of the Media and government officials:

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is not eligible for the office of President, regardless of where he was born; regardless of whether he does or does not have a birth certificate; or can or cannot prove his birth story; regardless of whether he has to prove or does not have to prove what he claims.  He claimed it. STOP.

What to do now, about this Endemic Corruption?

When all else fails, its best to consider the common sense solution.

First, if those who have the duty of acting fail to act, either those who are their superiors or their subordinates must act, when it is a question of justice.

It is a question of justice.

Now who are the superiors of the Federal Government?  And who are the inferiors?

We the People.  Because We the People gave the Federal Government its existence.  It says so, right in the first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

If there is a hierarchy of rights in the Constitution, it is clearly those signified by this, its Preamble.  “Preamble” means what “walks before hand”, “introduces”, or “sets the context.” As such everything else that follows in the Constitution and Amendments, and the entire government which flows from that is so determined.

Thus when meeting any elected federal official, or going before any court, you have every right to read them the riot act, that is, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, as the introduction and explanation for your reason of appearing before them.  And you should do this, because it is evident they have all forgotten it.

This is a perpetual relation and right that applies to all of us:  “to ourselves and our Posterity.”

This Preamble is also common sense; it affirms nothing else but the natural law notion of subsidiarity.  The law of subsidiarity was enunciated by Pope Pius XI, in his Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, paragraph 80:

the …most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them…(n. 79) Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of “subsidiary function,” the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.

In the case of the United States, since there is no reason for the Federal Government to encompass or exercise all the rights or powers of its citizens (indeed this is expressly denied in the 9th and 10th Ammendments), it is unjust that it do so.

It is also nonsensical for citizens to act as if the Federal Government encompasses the same.

The Theory of Pre-Constitutionalism

This is the rationale for what might rightly be called a theory of Pre-Constitutionalism.

The fundamental thesis of which is, that there exist rights of We the People, which they have from the Creator of the natural order of things; and that such rights were not only the basis for justifying the promulgation of the Constitution, but are also the basis for upholding it.

The immediate consequent of this principle of pre-constitutionalim is this: that as soon as all the Branches  of the Federal Government have refused to uphold the Constitution in any case which regards unconstitutional action; We the People have the immediate right to take action, because they have de facto renounced their right.

Hence, since the Constitution gives to no branch of the Federal Government the right to act unconstitutionally; and since the same Constitution does not deprive the citizens of the right to seek justice in such cases (indeed in the 1st Amendment it grants the right to petition for grievances), it follows that the Citizens can lawfully establish such institutions and take such actions as are necessary to uphold the Constitution.

If they could not, then the Constitution could not be enforced in such cases.

Since We the People gave the Constitution its being, existence and authority; We the People obviously have the right and authority to create institutions and take actions to see that it is upheld; whether these are judicial, or otherwise.

This is the logic invoked by the American Grand Jury Movement, most of whose critics ignore these more fundamentals laws and rights. However, to be consistent with the theory of Pre-constitutionalism, such institutions should in no way submit to constitutional institutions, nor are they requireed to do so, since the authority which empowers them is superior to the Constitution; and the rights which they exercise to act to uphold it are likewise prior and superior to all constitutional powers and obligations.

Indeed, it is precisely because the schools of Law in the United States ignore a proper treatement of the fundamental principles of law and right, and of governement, that most laywers and seemingly all judges, either do not understand this argument, or refuse to admit it; since they are officers of a court established only to act within the boundaries of what follows from the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, they are not trained to look backwards toward it.