A “NATIONAL” GOVERNMENT CAN OBLITERATE STATES’ AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
by Michael Gaddy, ©2017
(Feb. 21, 2017) — When James Madison left New York for Philadelphia on May 2nd, 1787 he carried with him not the proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation which was the mandate of the convention but an entirely new idea for a constitution that would make the “National” government supreme with the states nothing but subdivisions of the central government structure. His proposal would grant the national government veto power over all state laws. Madison’s plan was totally contrary to the results of the recent war with England which gave primary power to the states with the central government only allowed the powers the states saw fit to provide. Madison’s plan called for a consolidated union that would virtually annihilate the states. The states would only be maintained as long as they could be “subordinately useful.”
In opposition to this proposed form of government, New York delegate John Lansing would most astutely observe that the states would never have consented to select delegates to attend a convention that would lead to their destruction.
So, why is this of any importance? Simply because the Nationalist form of government which would allow a strong central government to act directly on the people, ironically what our government of today has become, was completely rejected by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Unfortunately for Liberty, the form of government rejected at the convention is now seen as supreme by the overwhelming majority of people in office; people running for office; all judges regardless of position in government; all of the bureaucrats and a huge majority of people in this country.
So-called “conservative” elected officials have been heard to state “no law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.” A “conservative” candidate for US Senate was recently heard to remark that whatever the US Supreme Court rules must be considered as gospel. This is a complete repudiation of the rights of states to determine what is best for their own citizens and therefore a repudiation of the principles of Jefferson and an advocacy of the principles found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf which revolved around destruction of the individual states.
On the subject of the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional, Jefferson stated the following:
“…(T)he 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.”
Giving the Supreme Court the power to judge what is and what is not constitutional, not only the federal level but also on the state level, destroys the very intent of the 9th and 10th Amendments. In other words, the Supreme Court Justices and other lesser federal judges have set about to amend our Constitution by judicial fiat.
On this subject George Mason would state the following at the Virginia State Ratifying Convention:
“If the laws and constitution of the general government, as expressly said, be paramount to those of any state, are not those rights with which we were afraid to trust our own citizens annulled and given up to the general government? . . . If they are not given up, where are they secured?”
I do not believe the subject can be any clearer that when the “national” government supersedes those of the states, Liberty soon becomes first endangered and finally extinct.
So, how is this connected to Adolf Hitler, you ask? The answer can be found on page 572 of Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf. While lamenting that Bismarck had not gone far enough in destroying state’s rights in Germany, Hitler said:
“And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations but from ideal considerations as well…basic for us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . . .”
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and the other nationalists among our founders believed that to have an omnipotent central government, the power of the individual states must be eliminated. Accomplishing this would lead to the destruction of the Declaration of Independence concept of “consent of the governed,” a concept vital to the existence of Liberty and Natural Rights.
Abraham Lincoln initiated a war to destroy the concepts of State’s Rights and consent of the governed, killing over 800,000 Americans and replacing the government based on consent with a strong central government ruled by a cabal unrestrained with the limits of a constitution.
Lincoln was praised by Karl Marx for his accomplishments and Adolf Hitler used Lincoln’s premise for an omnipotent central government to establish his National Socialist empire that led to the deaths of millions; some in furnaces and by firing squad to millions more on the battlefields of WWII.
The candidates, politicians and all members of the species Ignoramus Americanus who claim that decrees of the Supreme Court are infallible and constitute immutable law adhere to the beliefs of some of the most evil, murderous tyrants in history and should be treated as the enemies to Liberty that they are.
Contrast please the diametrically opposed concepts of Adolf Hitler and Thomas Jefferson.
“National Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected.” ~Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 578
“That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution, 10 November 1798
As you read the two above quotes you must ask yourself: “Which of the two most closely resembles the government we have today, supported by candidates and politicians who claim the federal government and its attendant bureaucracies and decrees of the US Supreme Court to be gospel?”
Would it suffice to say that as the power of the individual states and the people are concerned, so goes Freedom and Liberty?
Who do you choose; Jefferson or Hitler?
IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.