Limited Federal Government
Appendix I. Documentation
8th Edition
May 9, 2004
Important Items in the Documentation
UN Charter is a treaty - That is a given.
|
ES = Endangered Species |
|
|
|
Prologue
Most of the statements in the Prologue are covered in the body of the thesis.
Concerning the statement, “These facts are so basic that jurisdictional arguments have no standing in this issue”, no where in the Constitution are our public servants granted license to violate that Constitution and hide behind a charade of legal double talk.
Treaties can not assume license to violate the Constitution, as explained in "Constitution Trumps Treaties".
“We hold these truths to be self-evident ...” is from the the Declaration of Independence.
Chapter I. The Problem
A. Statement of the Problem
The United States is a Constitutional Republic as described in the United States Constitution. The United States was never intended to be a democracy.
“Intent of the Founders. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, 'Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?' With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, 'A republic, if you can keep it.' This exchange was recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review.” Source: <http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/11-06-2000/vo16no23_republic.htm>. This is an informative essay on the extensive difference between a republic and a democracy, exposing the attempts by FDR and Clinton to make people think we have a the latter.
Federalist Papers #43, James Madison. “ ...'To guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government; ...” Madison is speaking of the Constitution. This means, then, that the United States is a republic guaranteed by our Constitution -- a Constitutional Republic.
President Hoover Set a Precedent of establishing law through the use of executive orders (EOs).
Herbert Hoover may have been the president that set the stage for government by decree by making EOs law. See Hoover X , The law that may be the start of the mechanism that enables EOs to become law sans Congress. By Forest, thanks to Maureen and Sarah. War and Emergency Powers Act gives President the power.
The best treatise on government by decree is State of the Union 1998 by Doug Fiedor.
Liars Stealing Freedom gives a good wake up call about government by decree.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu92.htm#Hitler,HU92> Government by decree
<http://www.uhuh.com/laws/list-law.htm#PresHooverSetEoPrecedent>
<http://www.uhuh.com/laws/list-law.htm#EOsLaw>
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu68.htm> EMERGENCY DECLINE OF FREEDOM
NES Off Switch - National Emergency Off Switch. Forest sent this bill to Congress, but not even so much as a reply was returned. So much for Congress as we sail off into the sunset of oblivion.
FDR did more to destroy our constitutional republic than anyone before or since.
“One Origin of Bad Government” speaks of FDR's court packing escapades. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron222.htm#ONEORIGINOFBADGOVERNMENT>
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu115.htm> “Happy Birthday, Bill of Rights”
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu93.htm#FDR1500EOs,hu93> Clinton topped that record.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu93.htm#FedGovtHasOwnCourts,hu93>
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu93.htm#FDR1500EOs,hu93>
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu157.htm#FDRAndRegs,hu157> “All of Washington, DC knows that regulatory agencies are unconstitutional.”
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu157.htm> Unconstitutional regulators are immune and have guns.
Yet a new level was reached under the devastating reign of C2G (Clinton, Clinton and Gore).
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu104.htm#Clinton gutted America>
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu132.htm> “THE CO PRESIDENCY DEBACLE”
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu154.htm> “Another Good Scandal Brewing”
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu100.htm> “GORE SHOULD NEVER BE PRESIDENT”
For much more, visit http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/husubdex.htm>
Read a parallel in history at <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu166.htm#LIARSSTEALINGFREEDOM,166>
Regarding treaties, here is what the Constitution of the United States says:[Bold by Forest]
Article II. Sec. 2: “... [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...”
Article III. Sec. 3: “... The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. ...”
Article VI. “... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding....”
Amendment XI: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
A flag of concern is raised about the 11th Amendment. By removing the judicial power of the United States from suits by a foreign state, we may have given our judicial sovereignty to the United Nations. This is NOT good, and may even border on treason by Congress. Forest.
Treaties can NOT supersede the Constitution of the United States. This fact is especially important to the Klamath Basis crises where the federal government has over reached its authority to control land. The following is a powerful excerpt from the documentation for Constitution Trumps Treaties:
From Page 482 of “Constitution Trumps Treaties”: “A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties ``are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.''\328\ As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed [[Page 483]] the Court has numerous times so stated.”
Excerpts from
Constitution Trumps Treaties
especially concerning land control
by
Forest Glen Durland
Control and use of land by the federal government is strictly limited by the Constitution of the United States. No treaty can supersede or alter the Constitution. This fact is thoroughly discussed in this thesis, Limited Federal Government. "Constitution Trumps Treaties" deals with the documentation on the subject of limitation of treaty power.
Few words by me are needed. The excerpts below say it.
One will immediately notice that the subject of treaty power versus the Constitution has many points. I will let the Justices of the Supreme Court discuss those in the following paragraphs. Of interest is the indefinite line between treaty power and legislative power. This is, indeed, interesting. Another point of contention is whether or not treaties are self executing. It appears that Congress can negate a treaty. It certainly is the wish of this writer that they would test it out on the UN Charter, which a treaty, and a very harmful one.
Clarification of a clause in the Constitution of the United States is in order here. Article VI, clause 2 declares that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance therof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” It is the last clause that is misunderstood, even by attorneys. “...Constitution or Laws of any State ...” refers to the Constitutions of the several states, NOT the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers were much too well informed to allow the state Constitutions to alter the United States Constitution. That would have been self defeating. The truth of the matter is that neither treaties nor state laws can supersede or alter the Constitution of the United States. Our national document is etched in stone. It is unfortunate that most Congress Persons do not read stone.
For the remainder of this research paper plus additional documentation and source, please click here.
See Becraft's brief', “TREATIES: A SOURCE FOR FEDERAL MUNICIPAL POWER” at <http://www.uhuh.com/laws/treatypo.htm> [Note: This brief is dated. Court Cooks Glancing Goose is a recent case that trims the wings on the Migratory Bird nonsense.]
In addition, it is doubtful that any land in the Klamath Basin was properly ceded to the federal government by the States of Oregon and California as authorized by the Constitution of the United States.
See “PROTECTING OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS” (Fiedor Report On the News #243), a monument to trimming down excessive government.
In the smaller picture we find the farmers in the Klamath Basin being forced out of business by unconstitutional acts of the federal government. In the larger picture, we see this action nationally in a magnitude that indicates an organized dismantling of our agricultural industry. Whoever is implementing this national disaster is relentlessly reducing the United States to dependency on Third World Countries for food. With drinking and farming water also controlled, America will be at the mercy of those in control of those human necessities. It could easily be concluded at that point that America would no longer be free, but would have definitely entered into the final stage of a total dictatorship.
The world economy is an oil economy that is fully controlled. The United States of America should be energy independent, but is dependent on imported oil from Third World Nations.
In the overall scenario we see it is all being done at public expense with our tax dollars.
In the total picture emerges a gnawing question: Why? And who?
This disastrous chain of events must be stopped. The first road block could be placed in the Klamath Basin. In fact, it is highly probable that so go the the farmers in the Klamath Basin, so goes America. This is not a fight to lose.
Following is documentation for the above discussion.
[The same action is happening in the Southwest with BLM range land, in Nebraska along the Platte River, in Florida and in Ohio, to mention a few. More details on this subject will be found at
<http://www.uhuh.com/action/klamfalls/list-kfa.htm#National> and <http://www.calfraud.com/>.]
For the control of human necessities, reference is made to the Controls List on uhuh.com. No attempt is made to draw any conclusions. Any and all people control items are listed for reference. The chore of adding new listings is never ending. <http://www.uhuh.com/control/list-con.htm> . The picture is ominous.
Charlotte Iserbyte has provided us with a detailed insight to the emerging dictatorship. Formerly with the Reagan Administration, her book, Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, provides us with a chronological record of the events. The mechanics of a UN dictatorship are in place. See Bibliography. On the web, go to
<http://www.uhuh.com/education/noamer.htm> .
For an expose' on control through control of energy, in this case, oil, see Lindsey Williams' Energy Non Crisis. It is small and revealing. Lindsey was the chaplain to the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. He states that his story reports a greater scandal than Watergate. See Bibliography.
The Land Grab Scam
It seems as though we may have inadvertently stumbled on some sort of major plan. We are not ready to call this a "conspiracy" yet, but there sure seems to be quite a few rather sinister components in the mix.
First, we must admit that all the information is not compiled yet. We already have more than enough information to bind into a fat book. But there is still a lot more data available. However, while we do not yet have every piece of available information, we now have more than enough cold hard facts to sound-off publicly. And we can conclusively prove everything we write here.
The fact is that someone (more likely, a group) obviously has a plan to control large portions of the land mass of the United States. Their plan was originally slow in realizing results, but it is getting good results lately.
Apparently, the group's first problem was to get their people in place within the various federal regulatory agencies. Unfortunately, that part of the plan has been very, very successful. They (or like minded people) now control most or all of at least 15 federal regulatory agencies. This is done openly too. In fact they are so blatant about it, and they trade personnel so often, that it's almost like there is a revolving door between certain activist groups and some of the regulatory agencies.
And lest anyone have to guess what we mean here, the answer is an unequivocal "Yes!" The federal government makes it a practice to hire well known far- left environmental activists into federal regulatory agencies. Worse, the function of these activists within the regulatory agencies is both to write regulations, and to ensure that you obey them.
The second problem was to restrict land usage. At least thirteen federal agencies and the Army (Corps of Engineers) joined together to accomplish that. We see the land use restrictions in the form of federal rules and regulations -- almost all of which are written and enforced by the different federal agencies themselves, with only minimal input and involvement from those elected to Congress.
The euphemistic terms for the most severely regulated land areas currently include wildlands, wetlands, monument areas, heritage sites, cooperative zones, wilderness zones, etc., etc.
An important one is missing, you say? Yeah, we know.
The point here is that government (in this case, federal agencies) needs to tag these "special" areas of interest with some type of designation. It's kind of a "you name it and you own it" type mentality. And they can't all have the same designation, either; else people would start catching on. Anyway, exactly what that special designation is called this week is not even important. What is important are the implications on the citizens of the United States.
All of these "areas" or "zones" have one very important thing in common: You (or any of us) cannot do much of anything there. In fact, we cannot even enter many of these areas! Some of these huge blocks of land are totally restricted, forbidden to (normal American) humans. Your dog, cat and bird can go there, but you may not enter.
Hundreds of thousands of square miles of American land are already restricted by these federal agencies in some way. But that's just the beginning. You see folks, the federal agencies tried this property regulation thing out on the American public a little at a time, and the American public took the bait and accepted the impositions. Now we Americans think things are supposed to be this way, so they're planning to come at us full force.
In other words, we relinquished our third most important unalienable right, our right over our property, to unelected federal bureaucrats. Now, when bureaucrats say words like "wetland" or "endangered species," American property owners go cower in the corner. We have been trained.
That was part of the plan. And look at the time-frame in which all this happened: Twenty years.
Now, here's where things start getting interesting. The restricted areas -- the wildlands, wetlands, monument areas, heritage sites, cooperative zones, wilderness zones, and what have you -- were not picked at random. Each and every one of these areas was designated years ago by the U.S. & UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program as proposed biosphere reserves.
Oh. They didn't tell you? Uh huh. Well, don't feel left out. They didn't tell anyone. They didn't even tell elected officials -- but we will.
Anyway, the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere people designated their areas of interest long ago. The function of their minions in the federal regulatory agencies is to create reasons to place strict land use regulations on these areas so they will meet the UNESCO qualifications for the biosphere reserve program. In other words, they have to get us pesky American citizens away from the land first, and they have enlisted the aid of federal regulatory agencies to do exactly that.
That's why the Army (Corps of Engineers), the very same group that converted most of this country's original "wetlands" to farm land, will now go after citizens with a vengeance for even rerouting a ditch or filling a puddle. It has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong or preserving the environment. These "enforcement" actions are little more than an authority thing. American citizens must be trained to comply.
Same with the EPA. Those idiots now want us to clean up the environment to a point that is cleaner than it would be if there were no humans on this continent! Yet, we sit back and accept this foolishness as being a normal function of government. We're trained.
It's time for this foolishness to come to a screeching halt. Towards that end, some of us have a plan too. Our plan is not as grand as theirs, by any means. But it may work.
Because, simply put, we Americans must recoup our property rights. There is no Constitutional authority for most regulatory agencies to even exist. And most certainly, there is no Constitutional authority for federal regulatory agencies to impose their will on the American public.
Our right to own and use property is an unalienable right, which means that it is a right that is incapable of being given up, taken away, or transferred to another. That right is untouched by the Constitution and reinforced within the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it may not be violated by federal law. And our right over property certainly should never, ever be even discussed in bureaucratic edict.
That said, it is time to contemplate action. More on this later.
(From Fiedor Report On the News #46.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu46.htm#LANDGRAB SCAM,46>)
More UN Foolishness
It looks like the United Nations really is preparing for a world government. We reported on their land grab and tax schemes long ago, and everyone already knows about their army. Now they announce that they want a UN police department, too!
The UN Security Council recently posted Press Release SC/6397 -- dated July 4, incidentally -- on their web site (<www.un.org)>. It begins by declaring:
"Noting the increasing role and special functions of civilian police in United Nations peace- keeping operations, the Security Council this morning encouraged States to make appropriately trained police available to the Organization at short notice, if possible through stand-by arrangements. It also encouraged the Secretary-General to guide States, in order to promote a standardized approached to the training and recruitment of civilian police. . . .
"According to the Council, civilian police performed indispensable functions in monitoring and training national police forces. They could play a major role, through assistance to local police forces, in restoring civil order, supporting the rule of law and fostering civil reconciliation. The Council saw an increasingly important role for them in helping build confidence and security between parties and among local populations, in order to prevent or contain conflicts or to build peace in their aftermath."
It will be very interesting to see which American police organization the Clinton administration "volunteers" for UN duty. Most of us would, of course, like to volunteer the whole of the BATF and the IRS for overseas duty. But alas, that will never happen. Ten to one, this administration will send street cops from major metropolitan areas overseas.
By the way, does anyone know if Clinton gets to keep his Secret Service bodyguards when he becomes Secretary-General of the United Nations? That sounds like it would be a conflict of interest for Treasury employees.
Anyone interested in looking up UN documents may want to save a little time by starting with their search engine at:
Meanwhile, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has that "get the UN out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the UN" bill ready to go. Perhaps we could encourage him to take a lesson from the antics of Senators Kohl and Lautenberg last year. You know, sneak his bill into a larger bill while no one is watching. The new appropriations bills immediately come to mind. No one on Capitol Hill ever reads them till long after they are passed.
(From Fiedor Report On the News #46.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu46.htm#MOREUNFOOLISHNESS,46>)
B. Reason for the Study
vandalized by the unconstitutional IRS - Documentation for the IRS statements will be found in the documentation for Chapter III. Constitutional Supremacy. E. Internal Revenue Service.
Through civil disobedience, unconstitutional agencies and laws may often be negated.
An efficient way to get a bad law repealed is to vigorously enforce it. The object is to get the people so angry they will act. . Civil disobedience, but not violence, is the way to go to get most laws repealed.
C. Organization of the Thesis
The 16th and 17th Amendments deviate from the intent of the Founding Fathers. The writers and those approving the Constitution of the United States were very clear on the type and limit of the federal government. They were also very clear on the retention of states rights. These two issues were critical to them after the severe repression under the Crown of England.
The 16th Amendment erroneously gave Congress power to levy taxes. This was not the intent of the Constitution, which critically restrains taxation. There is abundant legal research on this subject, including two Supreme Court cases. <http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/list-tax.htm>
Congress passed an Act in 1894 to impose a tax on the incomes of citizens and resident aliens of the United States. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged in 1895 and the Supreme Court said that the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it was a DIRECT TAX that was not apportioned as the Constitution required. (see Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 [1895]).
The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1916 that the 16th Amendment did NOT change the U.S. Constitution because of the FACT that Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, were NOT REPEALED OR ALTERED; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself. The Court also said that the 16th Amendment merely prevented the "income duty" from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation. (see Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US [1916])
In another Supreme Court decision in 1916, the Court, in clear language settled the application of the 16th Amendment; " . . . by the previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER OF TAXATION but simply prohibited the complete and plenary [full] power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged . . . " (see Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , 240 US 112 [1916]). See <http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/believe.htm>
The 17th Amendment moved the selection of senators from state government appointment to election by the people. That move trashed states rights, an issue so critical that the original signers of the Constitution insisted on what are now the 9th and 10th Amendments. The original intent was for the people to elect their state governments, and for their state governments to appoint their senators to Congress, thus retaining states rights. The people at large were to elect their representatives to the House of Representatives, thus giving them a direct control of 0 Congress. But with the clever, but ominous, 17th Amendment, the selection of senators was moved to a general election. The problem here is the control of money and the press. The International Bank Lords (IBLs) are now in nearly complete control of money, elections and the federal government. We are in a serious predicament, Folks. Although beyond the scope of this thesis, this grave problem is discussed to its very root in Money Is Unreal at <http://www.uhuh.com>. Click on Unreal and take the tour.
Read the original at <http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm> [There is an underscore before .htm]
This topic is beyond the scope of this thesis, so other than a few documentary sources, nothing more will be discussed.
The media has been anti-constitutional. Read “Media vs Constitution” at <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron225.htm#MEDIAVSCONSTITUTION>
“Activism: The Media, Part I” <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu110.htm>
People do not believe the mainstream media anymore. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron233.htm#PeopleBreakingLiberalMediaLiars,fr233>
For much, much more on a tainted media, see <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/husubdex.htm#CongresAndMedia>
We are to bear arms to protect ourselves from an errant government.
Bold added by Forest. James Madison wrote:
"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
Federalist Papers 46, Madison. <http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm>
Chapter II. Definitions of Terms Used
For definitions of terms common to modern politics, see <http://www.uhuh.com/defs.htm>
Biosphere - [http://www.unesco.org/mab/brfaq.htm]
The UN Charter is a treaty. See Becraft's brief', “TREATIES: A SOURCE FOR FEDERAL MUNICIPAL POWER” at <http://www.uhuh.com/laws/treatypo.htm>
One old political dictionary defines Rule of Law as "an Anglo-American concept that emphasizes the supremacy of the law and restricts the discretionary power of public officials. The Rule of Law particularly stresses the protection of individual rights from the arbitrary interference of officials." In other words, when applied correctly, it protects your personal freedom. Not the group rights the liberals and establishment media try to push, but our individual rights and liberties.
In The Road to Serfdom, Professor of Economics and Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek says of the Rule of Law: “. . . this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand -- rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.”
Now do you see why we need to know more about the Rule of Law? Because it restricts the discretionary power of public officials.
(http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/state98.htm#RuleofLaw,def,su98)
(Hayek, p 80)
(Fiedor Report On the News #76, 78, 98 and 113)
(Source of Heads Up: http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm)
Note that the Rule of Law is a concept, not a law. It is, to a degree, understood in the Constitution of the United States. The Rule of Law is the concept by which we are to obey our documented system of government as indicated by the Constitution of the United States and the resultant law. So, to say we follow the Rule of Law is to say that we follow the Constitution.
From Congressman's Hyde's speech during the Clinton impeachment hearings:
"We are the heirs of the 20th century's great struggles against totalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense cost against the worst tyrannies in human history. The "rule of law" is no pious phrase from a civics textbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while strengthening the common good. The rule of law is like a three-legged stool: one leg is an honest judge, the second leg is an ethical bar, and the third is an enforceable oath. All three are indispensable to avoid political collapse.
"In 1838, Abraham Lincoln celebrated the rule of law before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, and linked it to the perpetuation of American liberties and American political institutions:
"'Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap - let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges - let it be written in primers, spelling books, and almanacs - let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.'"(1)
(Congressman Hyde during the Clinton impeachment hearings in the House.
<http://www.uhuh.com/impeach/hyderule.htm>)
Lee Iacocca discussed the difficulty of planning for a business when the nation lacked the stability of reasonable policies, and how America is suffering from it. This is the Rule of Law in action, or rather the lack of it. In his Autobiography, start reading on page 346. Lee says that governments all over the world plan, except ours, and that we have hundreds of industrial policies. In the same book, Chapter XIX, “Chrysler Goes to Congress”, frankly tells the story of miserable monetary policy, or lack of it, in Washington. Also read Chapter XXVIII, “The Japanese Challenge”.
In Iacocca's “Talking Straight” on page 194, he says, “I hate to admit it, but I have no idea what our trade policy is. There are eight different entities in Washington creating trade policy -- different trade policy!”
Ron Paul, the best person in Congress, wrote an excellent essay concerning the Rule of Law.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu78.htm>. Go to REAL STRAIGHT TALK.
Judges are bound to follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu76.htm#RuleOfLawJudges>
It is most interesting to note that laws are supposed to be simple and easy to understand. Our Founding Fathers had a few words to say about what we now call the Rule of Law:
The 6th Amendment mandates: "... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." It can be argued that one is not informed if one can not understand the law.
Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers No. 62: " It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? "
Try reading GATT and NAFTA, cases in point. Those laws are about 12 inches thick. Obviously no politician ever read all of either one. Another point: Treaties are supposed to help America, not devastate it, but NAFTA is bankrupting the farmers, of issue here. It appears that NAFTA should be declared unconstitutional.
"What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?" asked James Madison in 1787. His words ring very true again today.
Later, in The Federalist #44 he wrote: "The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding."
Madison was writing about the capricious legislative actions of Great Britain. But, if we rewrote that into modern English, most Americans would identify it as describing today's federal government.
A few years ago, Business Week reported that there are more than 100,000 new laws, rules and regulations enacted in the United States each year. Between 1976 and 1986, state legislatures alone made up 248,000 new laws. And, on average, each of these laws spurred at least ten new regulations.
And that's only the state governments. The federal government is even worse. At last count, we found over 11,585 pages of IRS regulations, 11,270 pages of regulations for Agriculture, 11,808 pages for the EPA, and 5,368 for Labor, to name just a few affecting our personal activities. A quick look in a public library showed 211 fat books containing 122,027 pages of Federal regulations directly affecting American citizens.
That's 122,027 pages of regulations alone, not laws passed by Congress. And, we're responsible for obeying every damn one of them! When you also factor in federal laws, this gets way, way out of hand.
The most important function of government is the protection of the people -- to protect the free exercise of our rights and liberties. Instead, legislators and regulatory agencies seem to be trying to classify every known human activity as either prohibited or mandatory.
Worse yet, any of these rules and regulations can be arbitrarily enforced on an unsuspecting citizen at any time. And, although they might be officially labeled rules and regulations by legislators, to the citizen they have the full force of law. After all, what happens if you break one of these little bureaucratic jewels? Agents with guns come after you and courts fine you and/or put you in prison, that's what!
Madison was right. An over regulated society is not conducive to business -- and hence, to building wealth within that society. These actions by the federal government are, in effect, stymieing the welfare of the country.
Is it any wonder so many American businesses, and American jobs, are moving to less regulated countries?
(From Fiedor Report On the News #304.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron304.htm#MADISONWARNEDUS,304>)
When he wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson took a little editorial liberty with the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Consequently, if we modern Americans are to fully understand our own personal rights and liberties, this requires a little explanation.
Back in the days of the Founding Fathers, every family was said to have two well studied books in their library. The most important best seller around 1775, of course, was "The Bible." The second best seller in the Colonies was "Blackstone's Commentaries on The Law," then a new three volume set on English common law.
For the Founding Fathers, "Blackstone's Commentaries" was the law book of the day. Of course, the writings of John Locke and others were freely quoted too. But, they were theory. "Blackstone's" was an accurately written description of our Common Law. Since then, "Blackstone's Commentaries" has been used for over two-hundred years in every English speaking law school in the world. Even today, a well read copy of "Blackstone's" can be found in any American law library.
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin all studied "Blackstone's" at length, as did all of the Founders. That is very obvious in their writings. They quote and paraphrase the text extensively.
So, it is no surprise that the phrase written by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence originated in Chapter One of Book One of Blackstone's, titled "Absolute Rights of Individuals." Blackstone describes the absolute rights of individuals as being our right to life, liberty and property. Jefferson took the editorial liberty of changing "property" to "pursuit of happiness," knowing full well that all Colonial Americans would understand exactly what was meant.
It is us, today's Americans, who seem to have a problem with that meaning. We Americans have lost the concept of true freedom because we no longer know exactly what our rights are. In today's United States, the word "rights" has been corrupted so completely that few Americans any longer know the difference between the terms procedural rights and civil rights, and our unalienable rights and liberties. However, the basics can be learned in less than a minute, so let's examine a little of Blackstone's original text.
Sir William Blackstone defines our absolute rights as "those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it." These rights have also been called natural rights by some.
Blackstone then breaks these rights down into three basic categories:
LIFE -- The Right of Personal Security: "This right consists of a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health and his reputation." Herein can also be found your right of self defense.
LIBERTY -- The Right of Personal Liberty: "This consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of moving one's person to whatever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by course of law." We find this right protected, to a limited extent, within the body of our Constitution, and further guaranteed within the Bill of Rights.
PROPERTY -- The Right of Private Property: "This is the third absolute right, and consists in the free use, enjoyment and disposal by a man of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land."
Our Founding Fathers called these absolute rights "unalienable" -- incapable of being given up, taken away, or transferred to another. In Jefferson's first draft of The Declaration of Independence, the word was conventionally spelled inalienable.
However, the newspaper editor among them, Benjamin Franklin, thought unalienable sounded stronger. And, as they say, the rest is history.
Thus, the protection of Life, Liberty and Property -- our natural, absolute and unalienable rights -- became the underlying reason our country was formed.
There is, of course, a caveat here: As members of society, we are also required to respect these rights in all others. Therefore, the most important reason we empower governments to make and enforce laws is to insure that everyone respects the rights of others.
Towards this end, the body of our Constitution was carefully crafted by the Founding Fathers to allow the central government only certain enumerated powers. Although it may not seem like it today -- with our hundreds of thousands of pages of imposing laws, rules and regulations -- the powers of the federal government were designed to be few, and the freedoms of citizens were intended to be many.
Because of the lack of vigilance on the part of the American public, this ratio of government powers to personal freedom has recently reversed. We can probably recoup many of our unalienable rights again. But folks, it's going to take some effort from all of us. Bureaucrats are not about to relinquish their control over us without a lot of kicking and screaming.
(From Fiedor Report On the News #303.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron303.htm#THOSEUNALIENABLERIGHTS,303>).
What do you think the Founding Fathers would say about the oppressive legislation, rules, regulations, and executive orders emanating from today's federal government? Luckily, in The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
Strong stuff! "No legislative act, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." Hamilton may have been a lawyer and a politician, but there is certainly no equivocation there! That is quite a concept, especially coming from a man who actively participated in the Convention that wrote our Constitution.
(From Fiedor Report On the News #303.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron303.htm#NOTESONTHECONSTITUTION,303>).
For some reason, many in the Washington bureaucracy seem to think that spying on American citizens is a right of government. Obviously, it has not occurred to anyone in the White House, the spook agencies, the Department of Justice, and now even the Department of Defense, that they have no authority to be snooping on us. Absolutely none. The bureaucratically inconvenient words in the Fourth Amendment that supposedly limit their spying on citizens are:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The operative words "shall not be violated" seem rather understandable to most people, just not to politicians and bureaucrats. Note, also, that the authors of the amendment did not leave any wiggle room in the clause. The amendment was edited by the greatest legal minds of the day, in both houses of Congress, and says exactly what they meant -- in very clear English.
Also, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that every word of our Constitution is to apply equally to every official in government -- especially to the policing agencies and tax collectors.
So, who in government can be depended upon to defend our Fourth Amendment, and our right to privacy? Apparently, no one in Washington. Listen closely. Do you hear any words of support for your individual rights, liberties and privacy coming from your elected officials? Of course not. Just the opposite, in fact.
What the Washington bureaucracy seems to be telling the American people, in effect, is that the Rule of Law is dead and the Constitution is no longer really the law of the land.
(From Notes On the Constitution, 305.
<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron305.htm#NOTESONTHECONSTITUTION,305>)
Democracy - The United States was NOT intended to be a democracy.
Democracy decays into dictatorship.
Hayek tells us:
"While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.
"Lest this be doubted by people misled by official propaganda from either side, let me quote one more statement from an authority that ought not be be suspect. In an article under the significant title of 'The Rediscovery of Liberalism,' Professor Eduard Heimann, one of the leaders of German religious socialism, writes: 'Hitlerism proclaims itself as both true democracy and true socialism, and the terrible truth is that there is a grain of truth for such claims -- an infinitesimal grain, to be sure, but at any rate enough to serve as a basis for such fantastic distortions. Hitlerism even goes so far as to claim the role of protector of Christianity, and the terrible truth is that even this gross misinterpretation is able to make some impression. But one fact stands out with perfect clarity in all the fog: Hitler has never claimed to represent true liberalism. Liberalism then has the distinction of being the doctrine most hated by Hitler.” It should added that this hatred had little occasion to show itself in practice merely because, by the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was to all intents and purposes dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it.
"While to many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has became increasingly obvious, in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. There can be no doubt that most socialists here still believe profoundly in the liberal ideal of freedom and that they would recoil if they became convinced that the realization of their program would mean the destruction of freedom. So little is the problem yet seen, so easily do the most irreconcilable ideals still live together, that we can still hear such contradictions in terms as 'individualist socialism' seriously discussed. If this is the state of mind which makes us drift into a new world, nothing can be more urgent than that we should seriously examine the real significance of the evolution that has taken place elsewhere. Although our conclusions will only confirm the apprehensions which others have already expressed, the reasons why this development cannot be regarded as accidental will not appear without a rather full examination of the main aspects of this transformation of social life. That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects.”
Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, pages 34-36)
“The fact that this book [Road to Serfdom] was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term 'liberal' in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite if this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that 'liberal' has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.”
(Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, pages xxxv-xxxvi)
Also see ibid pages xxxii near bottom, xlii near the bottom and the second paragraph of page 33.
An interesting discussion of the present state of right and left holding hands behind their backs in politics will be found at <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu138.htm#WEARETHECENTRISTS,138>
James Madison wrote:
"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.”
(Federalist Papers #10, James Madison)
"We would like to add another short quote from The Federalist Papers here. In No. 47, James Madison tells us exactly what the "concentration of the several powers in the same department" is called:
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why we have so much trouble with the federal regulatory agencies.
(http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu185.htm#Federalist47,Tyranny,hu185)
[This entire essay is worthy of study in regards to the issues in this thesis.]
An excellent discussion on Republic vs Democracy will be found at <http://citizens.reagan.com/right/no-irs/republic.htm>
Federalist Papers - “The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade voters, especially in New York, to ratify the proposed constitution.” <http://www.mcs.net/~knautzr/fed/fedpaper.html>
NSC - National Safety Council, an NGO (non-governmental organization) <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron230.htm#YOURPAPERS,PLEASESEATBELTS>
NGO - non-governmental organization affiliated with the UN, which is a negative in this thesis. Here is their web site. Check the information on the UN demanding power over our courts and guns to get a true picture of UN intent. <http://www.ngo.org/index3.htm>
Weasel Clause
The main file became so large the links ran past the limit. The use of appendices solves that problem. The hard copy edition does not have this limitation, so no addenda is used there.
For convenience, this document titled Limited Federal Government has been posted on the Internet. Most documentation there is at your fingertips. The url is
<http://www.uhuh.com/action/govltd/govsmall.htm>.
All items in this appendix are copyrighted whether or not indicated on each page, subject to the rights of copied material. All rights are reserved.
Go to Appendix 1 for Document Contents, Prologue, Chapter I and Chapter II.
Go to Appendix 2 for Chapters III through VII.
Go to Appendix 3 For Supporting Documents
Go Back to Limited Federal Government
Go Back to the List of Limited Government Items
The President and Congress said they are reducing taxes and balancing the budget. uhuh. Sez who?
Smile and Force Congress to Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with Money System Honesty for Us People. We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.
Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.
Web Home Page: wwsw.uhuh.com