All Public Servants are mere stewards of the power(s) that We the People have lent to them. At the founding of this Republic We the People had three checks and balances which were used to keep Public Servants in check.
The People’s Three Fundamental Remedies;
1) We the People posses the superior principle of correction and through the
operation of this principle the following is true;
a) We the People posses over our constitutions control in ACT as well as RIGHT,
b) We the People have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefensible right to wholly
recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and
punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness,
to their emolument.
2) Common Law Trial by Jury not Jury Trial.
3) The corrective action of casting a ballot (voting).
Why do We the People posses the superior principle of correction?
Supreme, Absolute, and Uncontrollable Power in these United states
It has been said that the Constitution of these United states is the supreme law of the land, yet, there is a far more superior power than both Federal and State constitutions. One that is manifest in the book of Genesis. One granted by our creator.
Mr. James Wilson, delegate to the constitutional convention, signer of the bill of rights, framer of the constitution, Brigadier General of the Pennsylvania State Militia, and later supreme court justice appointed by George Washington, so eloquently describes the nature of power in these United states.
“There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable. Where does this power reside?
Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions. This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed, the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitutions control in act, as well as right.”
MONDAY, November 26, 1787, P. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“The consequence is, that the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”
“Oft have I marked, with silent pleasure and admiration, the force and prevalence, through the United States, of the principle that the supreme power resides in the people, and that they never part with it. It may be called the panacea in politics. There can be no disorder in the community but may here receive a radical cure. If the error be in the legislature, it may be corrected by the constitution; if in the constitution, it may be corrected by the people. There is a remedy, therefore, for every distemper in government, if the people are not wanting to themselves; if they are wanting to themselves, there is no remedy. From their power, as we have seen, there is no appeal; of their error there is no superior principle of correction.”
“In this Constitution, all authority is derived from the people.”
MONDAY, November 26, 1787, P. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“This will be a proper time for making an observation or two on what may be called the preamble to this Constitution. I had occasion, on a former day, to mention that the leading principle in the politics, and that which pervades the American constitutions, is, that the supreme power resides in the people. This Constitution, Mr. President, opens with a solemn and practical recognition of that principle: — "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, &c., do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It is announced in their name — it receives its political existence from their authority: they ordain and establish. What is the necessary consequence? Those who ordain and establish have the power, if they think proper, to repeal and annul. A proper attention to this principle may, perhaps, give ease to the minds of some who have heard much concerning the necessity of a bill of rights.”
WEDNESDAY, November 28, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“Its establishment [Constitution], I apprehend, has more force than a volume written on the subject. It renders this truth evident — that the people have a right to do what they please with regard to the government.”
WEDNESDAY, November 28, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“But, in this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with. When, therefore, they possess, as I have already mentioned, the fee-simple of authority, why should they have recourse to the minute and subordinate remedies, which can be necessary only to those who pass the fee, and reserve only a rent-charge?”
WEDNESDAY, November 28, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“To every suggestion concerning a bill of rights, the citizens of the United States may always say, WE reserve the right to do what we please.”
WEDNESDAY, November 28, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“If a legislature shall make a law contrary to the Constitution, or oppressive to the people, they have it in their power, every second year, in one branch, and every sixth year, in the other, to displace the men who act thus inconsistently with their duty; and if this is not sufficient, they have still a further power; they may assume into their own hands the alteration of the Constitution itself; they may revoke the lease when the conditions are broken by the tenant.”
WEDNESDAY, November 28, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“When I made the observation that some politicians would say the supreme power was lodged in our state constitutions, I did not suspect that the honorable gentleman from Westmoreland (Mr. Findley) was included in that description; but I find myself disappointed; for I imagined his opposition would arise from another consideration. His position is, that the supreme power resides in the states, as governments; and mine is, that it resides in the people, as the fountain of government; that the people have not — that the people meant not — and that the people ought not — to part with it to any government whatsoever. In their hands it remains secure. They can delegate it in such proportions, to such bodies, on such terms, and under such limitations, as they think proper. I agree with the members in opposition, that there cannot be two sovereign powers on the same subject.
I consider the people of the United States as forming one great community; and I consider the people of the different states as forming communities, again, on a lesser scale. From this great division of the people into distinct communities, it will be found necessary that different proportions of legislative powers should be given to the governments, according to the nature, number, and magnitude of their objects.
Unless the people are considered in these two views, we shall never be able to understand the principle on which this system was constructed. I view the states as made for the people, as well as by them, and not the people as made for the states; the people, therefore, have a right, whilst enjoying the undeniable powers of society, to form either a general government, or state governments, in what manner they please, or to accommodate them to one another, and by this means preserve them all. This, I say, is the inherent and unalienable right of the people; and as an illustration of it, I beg to read a few words from the Declaration of Independence, made by the representatives of the United States, and recognized by the whole Union.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
This is the broad basis on which our independence was placed: on the same certain and solid foundation this system is erected.”
TUESDAY, December 4, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“I will proceed to take some notice of those qualities in this Constitution that I think entitle it to our respect and favor. I have not yet done, sir, with the great principle on which it stands; I mean the practical recognition of this doctrine — that, in the United States, the people retain the supreme power.”
“Let us re-ascend first principles. The people of the United States are now in the possession and exercise of their original rights; and while this doctrine is known, and operates, we shall have a cure for every disease.”
TUESDAY, December 4, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter, September 28, 1820.
“All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”
Constitution of the State of Texas, Article 1 Section 2, 1876
[Please read the Bill of Rights for your State]
Sovereignty in these United states
Constitutions limit and define those original powers lent by the sovereignty, the people, to the different departments of government. No individual department or combination of departments may expand their authority or power thereby, taking from the people that which was not granted. We the People, wrote down with certain determination the powers we do grant. Sovereignty resides in the People.
“The secret is now disclosed, and it is discovered to be a dread, that the boasted state sovereignties will, under this system, be disrobed of part of their power. Before I go into the examination of this point, let me ask one important question. Upon what principle is it contended that the sovereign power resides in the state governments? The honorable gentleman has said truly, that there can be no subordinate sovereignty. Now, if there cannot, my position is, that the sovereignty resides in the people; they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare….”
“When the principle is once settled that the people are the source of authority, the consequence is, that they may take from the subordinate governments powers with which they have hitherto trusted them, and place those powers in the general government, if it is thought that there they will be productive of more good. They can distribute one portion of power to the more contracted circle, called state governments; they can also furnish another proportion to the government of the United States. Who will undertake to say, as a state officer, that the people may not give to the general government what powers, and for what purposes, they please?….”
SATURDAY, December 1, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“But I return to my general reasoning. My position is, sir that, in this country, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power resides in the people at large; that they have vested certain proportions of this power in the state governments; but that the fee-simple continues, resides, and remains, with the body of the people.”
“No, sir; I go practically into this system; I have gone into it practically when the doors were shut, when it could not be alleged that I cajoled the people; and I now endeavor to show that the true and only safe principle for a free people, is a practical recognition of their original and supreme authority.”
“’The power over elections, and of judging of elections, gives absolute sovereignty.’ This power is given to every state legislature; yet I see no necessity that the power of absolute sovereignty should accompany it. My general position is, that the absolute sovereignty never goes from the people.”
TUESDAY, December 4, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
“To the Constitution of the United States, the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But even in that place, it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves "SOVEREIGN" people of the United States. But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.
Having thus avowed my disapprobation of the purposes for which the terms, state and sovereign are frequently used, and of the object to which the application of the last of them is almost universally made, it is now proper that I should disclose the meaning which I assign to both, and the application, which I make of the latter. In doing this, I shall have occasion incidently to evince how true it is that states and governments were made for man, and, at the same time, how true it is that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker.”
Justice JAMES WILSON, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
“….The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws is that he binds himself. Upon the same principles upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the courts of justice which are formed and authorised by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this, why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise?”
Justice JAMES WILSON, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
“In one sense, the term "sovereign" has for its correlative "subject." In this sense, the term can receive no application, for it has no object in the Constitution of the United states. Under that Constitution, there are citizens, but no subjects. "Citizen of the United states." ["Citizens of another state." "Citizens of different states." "A state or citizen thereof."] The term, subject, occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet "foreign" is prefixed. In this sense, I presume the state of Georgia has no claim upon her own citizens. In this sense, I am certain, she can have no claim upon the citizens of another state.
In another sense, according to some writers, every state, which governs itself without any dependence on another power is a sovereign state. Whether, with regard to her own citizens, this is the case of the state of Georgia; whether those citizens have done, as the individuals of England are said by their late instructors to have done, surrendered the supreme power to the state or government, and reserved nothing to themselves; or whether, like the people of other states, and of the United states, the citizens of Georgia have reserved the supreme power in their own hands, and on that supreme power have made the state dependent, instead of being sovereign these are questions to which, as a judge in this cause, I can neither know nor suggest the proper answers, though, as a citizen of the Union, I know, and am interested to know that the most satisfactory answers can be given. As a citizen, I know the government of that state to be republican; and my short definition of such a government is one constructed on this principle that the supreme power resides in the body of the people. As a judge of this court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as a part of the "People of the United states," did not surrender the supreme or sovereign power to that state, but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is NOT a sovereign state. If the judicial decision of this case forms one of those purposes, the allegation that Georgia is a sovereign state is unsupported by the fact. Whether the judicial decision of this cause is or is not one of those purposes is a question which will be examined particularly in a subsequent part of my argument.”
Justice JAMES WILSON, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
“In the United states, and in the several states, which compose the Union, we go not so far, but still we go one step farther than we ought to go in this unnatural and inverted order of things. The states, rather than the people, for whose sakes the states exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention. This, I believe, has produced much of the confusion and perplexity which have appeared in several proceedings and several publications on state politics, and on the politics, too, of the United states. Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? "The United states," instead of the "People of the United states," is the toast given. This is not politically correct. The toast is meant to present to view the first great object in the Union: it presents only the second. It presents only the artificial person, instead of the natural persons who spoke it into existence. A state I cheerfully fully admit, is the noblest work of Man. But, Man himself, free and honest, is, I speak as to this world, the noblest work of God.”
Justice JAMES WILSON, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
“”The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation. To the purposes of public strength and felicity, that Confederacy was totally inadequate. A requisition on the several states terminated its legislative authority. Executive or judicial authority it had none. In order therefore to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquillity, to provide for common defence, and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and established the present Constitution. By that Constitution legislative power is vested, executive power is vested, judicial power is vested.
“The question now opens fairly to our view, could the people of those states, among whom were those of Georgia, bind those states, and Georgia among the others, by the legislative, executive, and judicial power so vested? If the principles on which I have founded myself are just and true, this question must unavoidably receive an affirmative answer. If those states were the work of those people, those people, and that I may apply the case closely, the people of Georgia, in particular, could alter as they pleased their former work. To any given degree, they could diminish as well as enlarge it. Any or all of the former state powers, they could extinguish or transfer. The inference which necessarily results is that the Constitution ordained and established by those people, and, still closely to apply the case, in particular by the people of Georgia, could vest jurisdiction or judicial power over those states and over the State of Georgia in particular.”
Justice JAMES WILSON, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
“The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by State conventions and other temporary arrangements. From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it, and it was then not an uncommon opinion that the unappropriated lands, which belonged to that Crown, passed not to the people of the Colony or States within whose limits they were situated, but to the whole people; on whatever principles this opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution, combined with local convenience and considerations; the people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly; afterwards, in the hurry of the war and in the warmth of mutual confidence, they made a Confederation of the States the basis of a general government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it, and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that, in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and, conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc. etc.
If then it be true that the sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State, it may be useful to compare these sovereignties with those in Europe, that we may thence be enabled to judge whether all the prerogatives which are allowed to the latter are so essential to the former. There is reason to suspect that some of the difficulties which embarrass the present question arise from inattention to differences which subsist between them.”
Chief Justice JOHN JAY, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
“….The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.”
Chief Justice JOHN JAY, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
"Sovereignty was, and is, in the people"
Glass v. Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall. (U.S.) 6 (1794)
“It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellow-men without his consent.”
Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May Term, 1796.
“The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign … It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) he shall not be bound."
The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348, 1825.
“Congress can exercise no power by virtue of any supposed inherent sovereignty in the general government. Indeed, it may be doubted whether the power can be correctly said to appertain to sovereignty in any proper sense, as an attribute of an independent political community. The power to commit violence, perpetrate injustice, take private property by force without compensation to the owner, and compel the receipt of promises to pay in place of money, may be exercised, as it often has been, by irresponsible authority, but it cannot be considered as belonging to a government founded upon law. But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld. It seems, however, to be supposed that, as the power was taken from the states, it could not have been intended that it should disappear entirely, and therefore it must, in some way, adhere to the general government, notwithstanding the tenth amendment and the nature of the constitution. The doctrine that a power not expressly forbidden may be exercised would, as I have observed, change the character of our government. If I have read the constitution aright, if there is any weight to be given to the uniform teachings of our great jurists and of commentators previous to the late civil war, the true doctrine is the very opposite of this. If the power is not in terms granted, and is not necessary and proper for the exercise of a power which is thus granted, it does not exist. And in determining what measures may be adopted in executing the powers granted, Chief Justice MARSHALL declares that they must be appropriate, plainly adapted to the end, not prohibited, and consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution.”
Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 1884.
"The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein; not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."
Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 1873
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts…"
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)
“The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty."
Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)
“In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people…the Congress cannot invoke sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared.”
Perry v. U.S., 294 U.S. 330 (1935)
“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.”
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 1958.
“The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.”
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am. Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
In the case Isbill v. Stovall the court was defined as "An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority.”
The People’s original and supreme authority, sovereignty, is an inalienable right. The Creator ordained and established this right in Genesis 1:26. See also, 1 Peter 2:9; Hebrews 2:6-8; Revelation 1:6 & 5:10.
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
Perry v. United States, 204 U.S. 330, 358.
Republican form of government not a democracy
No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic.
United States Constitution Art 4, Sec 4
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In our republic we are sovereigns without subjects therefore, the majority of the sovereignty cannot force their will on the minority of the sovereignty. The majority only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT - One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626
Democracy: 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. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority. As Benjamin Franklin stated a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.]
Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
“…The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only…”
Constitution of the State of Texas, Article 1 Section 2, 1876
It is a Constitution not a contract
“As this subject has been often mentioned, and as often misunderstood, it may not be improper to take some further notice of it. This, Mr. President, is not a government founded upon compact; it is founded upon the power of the people. They express in their name and their authority — "We, the people, do ordain and establish," &c.; from their ratification alone it is to take its constitutional authenticity; without that, it is no more than tabula rasa [blank slate].”
“I know well that in Great Britain, since the revolution, it has become a principle that the constitution is founded in contract; but the form and time of that contract, no writer has yet attempted to discover. It was, however, recognized at the time of the revolution, therefore is politically true. But we should act very imprudently to consider our liberties as placed on such foundation.”
‘’If we go a little further on this subject, I think we shall see that the doctrine of original compact cannot be supported consistently with the best principles of government. If we admit it, we exclude the idea of amendment; because a contract once entered into between the governor and governed becomes obligatory, and cannot be altered but by the mutual consent of both parties. The citizens of united America, I presume, do not wish to stand on that footing with those to whom, from convenience, they please to delegate the exercise of the general powers necessary for sustaining and preserving the Union. They wish a principle established, by the operation of which the legislatures may feel the direct authority of the people. The people, possessing that authority, will continue to exercise it by amending and improving their own work. This Constitution may be found to have defects in it; hence amendments may become necessary; but the idea of a government founded on contract destroys the means of improvement. We heal it every time the gentlemen are up, "Shall we violate the Confederation, which directs every alteration that is thought necessary to be established by the state legislatures only!'' Sir, those gentlemen must ascend to a higher source: the people fetter themselves by no contract. If your state legislatures have cramped themselves by compact, it was done without the authority of the people, who alone possess the supreme power’’
TUESDAY, December 4, 1787, A. M. — Mr. JAMES WILSON.
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
ORDAIN - to enact a constitution or law.
See State v. Dallas City
We the People posses the superior principle of correction
We the People, We the Sovereignty, have two avenues of correction. To determine which avenue to take, We the People must conclude wherein lies the error. Is the error in what We the People ordained and established [Constitution(s)] or does the error lie with those Public Servants who swore an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution?
If the error is in the Constitution(s);
1) We the People posses over our constitutions control in ACT as well as RIGHT.
We the Sovereignty;
May change the constitutions whenever and however we please,
Possess the fee-simple of authority,
Reserve the right to do what we please,
May assume into our own hands the alteration of the Constitution(s),
Have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish our government in such manner as we may think expedient.
If the error is with the Stewarts of our lent power;
2) We the People have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefensible right to wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse.
We the Sovereignty;
Are the source of authority,
Retain the right of recalling what power we have parted with,
Those who ordain and establish have the power to recall, repeal, revoke or annul,
Have a right to do what we please with regard to our government,
Are the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power, a power from which there is no appeal.
Hierarchy of Authority
1) The Law of Nature and Nature’s God [Yehovah]
2) We The People/Inalienable Rights
3) Constitutions
4) Public Servants [President, Governors, Legislators, Judges]
5) U.S. Citizens/Civil Rights [Privileges] 14th Amendment
It was commonly understood at the founding of the Republic that the People could, whenever necessary, assemble in convention [Ad Hoc Assembly] and correct the errors. We the People have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish our government in such manner as we may think expedient.
“We, the People, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self interest. What then? We will resist, did my friend say? conveying an idea of force. Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument. We ought to be extremely cautious not to be drawn into dispute with regular government, by faction and turbulence, its natural enemies. Here, then, sir, there is no cause of alarm on this side; but on the other side, rejecting of government, and dissolving of the Union, produce confusion and despotism.”
Mr. PENDLETON – Page 31
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
In Convention Richmond, Monday June 2, 1788.
“As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance? There is certainly great force in this reasoning, and it must be allowed to prove that a constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary occasions.”
James Madison, FEDERALIST NO. 49
Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention
From the New York Packet, Tuesday, February 5, 1788.
“The honorable gentleman [Mr. Pendleton] who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!”
Mr. HENRY – Page 40
THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
In Convention Richmond, Monday June 2, 1788.
Time for the Sovereignty to Arise and Stand Against Usurpation
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” In Congress July 4 1776, Declaration of Independence
The failure to uphold clear and plain provision of our Constitution cannot be regarded as mere error in judgment, but deliberate USURPATION. "Usurpation is defined as unauthorized arbitrary assumption and exercise of power." State ex rel. Danielson v. Village of Mound, 234 Minn. 531, 543, 48 N.W.2d 855, 863 (1951).
To take jurisdiction, power and/or authority where it clearly does not exist is usurpation, and no one is bound to follow acts of usurpation, and in fact it is a duty of citizens to disregard and disobey them since they are void and unenforceable.
The fact usurpation has been committed for many years cannot be held as a justification to continue to usurp power and set aside the constitutional provisions which are contrary to such usurpation.
“Acquiescence for no length of time can legalize a clear usurpation of power, where the people have plainly expressed their will in the constitution, and appointed judicial tribunals to enforce it. A power is frequently yielded to merely because it is claimed, and it may be exercised for a long period, in violation of the constitutional prohibition, without the mischief which the Constitution was designed to guard against appearing, or without any one being sufficiently interested in the subject to raise the question; but these circumstances cannot be allowed to sanction a clear infraction of the Constitution.”
Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 70-71.
To assume jurisdiction, power and/or authority were it does not exist would result in TREASON. Chief Justice John Marshall once stated: “We Judges [Public Servants] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction [power, authority] which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. (19 U.S.) 264, 404 (1821).
Public servants took an oath to uphold and support the Constitution, and their blatant disregard of that obligation and allegiance can only result in an act of “treason to the constitution”.
If public servants depart from the clear meaning of the Constitution, it will be regarded as a blatant act of TYRANNY. Any exercise of power which is done without the support of law or beyond what the law allows is tyranny. It has been said, with much truth, "Where the law ends, tyranny begins." Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U.S. 694, 702 (1881).
Tyranny and despotism exist where the will and pleasure of those in government is followed rather than established law. It has been repeatedly said and affirmed as a most basic principle of our government that, "…this is a government of laws and not of men; and that there is no arbitrary power located in any individual or body of individuals." Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U.S. 79, 84 (1901).
WE the PEOPLE do not submit to the will of the Government. The Government submits to the will of WE the PEOPLE, and the will of WE the PEOPLE is the Constitution. The Constitution is the Law of the Land for our Government. The Law of the Land for WE the PEOPLE is the Common Law.
In the past few years we have witnessed many acts of usurpation particularly during the alleged pandemic. There have also been many acts of usurpation that have been allowed to continue such as the Patriot Act and the Federal Reserve Act. The purpose of this document is not to lay out the long train of abuses and usurpations but to lay to foundational principles of We the Peoples’ power and authority.
Remedy for Usurpation, Tyranny and Treason
Remedy for Usurpation, Tyranny and Treason
For to long We the People have been lead to believe our only remedy was to cast a ballot. What if the ballot of the People has been manipulated thru machines and mules? What if foreign actors have meddled in our affairs? What if our public servants have been installed by those who would do us harm? What if the servants have elevated themselves to the master? Recall the words of Justice Wilson; “…how true it is that states and governments were made for man, and, at the same time, how true it is that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker.”
We the People have the remedy of a convention [Ad Hoc assembly]. We the People have a right and duty to peaceably assemble to correct our government. “But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.” July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence
“Congress shall make no law respecting….the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
United states Constitution, 1st Amendment
CONVENTION, n. [L. See Convene.]3. An assembly. In this sense, the word includes any formal meeting or collection of men for civil or ecclesiastical purposes; particularly an assembly of delegates or representatives for consultation on important concerns, civil, political or ecclesiastical. In Great Britain, convention is the name given to an extraordinary assembly of the estates of the realm, held without the kings writ; as the assembly which restored Charles II. to the throne, and that which declared the throne to be abdicated by James II. In the United States, this name is given to the assembly of representatives which forms a constitution of government, or political association; as the convention which formed the constitution of the United States in 1787.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828
An assembly/convention of the People is not a Convention of States. A Convention of States may be called to purpose Amendments to the Constitution, nothing more. State Legislatures can not call a Convention to recall delegated powers because the States did not ordain and establish the Constitution of the United states.
We the People have an inalienable right to gather in convention and amend or repeal portions or all of the Constitution. We the People have an inalienable right to gather in convention and recall a portion or all of OUR delegated authority. As Delegate Wilson said “But, in this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with. When, therefore, they possess, as I have already mentioned, the fee-simple of authority, why should they have recourse to the minute and subordinate remedies, which can be necessary only to those who pass the fee, and reserve only a rent-charge?”
These corrective actions may be done at the State or Federal level. We the People may revoke the lease when the conditions are broken by the tenant.
Although there are repeals and amendments that need to be done it is my humble opinion that We the People should recall are delegated authority, because of the usurpation and tyrannical behavior of our government. I believe the proper course of action would be to start with the State governments. Recall OUR delegated authority and reconstitute our State governments of the sure footing of the respective State Constitution.
We the People do not need the governments’ permission to exercise our original and supreme authority. Therefor if your State has “alleged laws” regarding these remedies treat them as advisory. In my next articles this point will be better understood.
Research and Reference Material
Online Library of Liberty
https://oll.libertyfund.org/
The Debates in the Several State Conventions vol. 1
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-1
The Debates in the Several State Conventions vol. 2
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-2
The Debates in the Several State Conventions vol. 3
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-3
The Debates in the Several State Conventions vol. 4
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-4
The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution vol. 5
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-on-the-adoption-of-the-federal-constitution-vol-5
Download PDF
The Debates in the Several State Conventions vol. 1
https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/1905/1314.01_Bk.pdf
The Debates in the Several State Conventions vol. 2
https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/1906/1314.02_Bk.pdf
The Debates in the Several State Conventions vol. 3
https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/1907/1314.03_Bk.pdf
The Debates in the Several State Conventions vol. 4
https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/1908/1314.04_Bk.pdf
The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution vol. 5
https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/1909/1314.05_Bk.pdf
Excellent essay Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=fac_lectures
The Federalist [Papers]
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/jay-the-federalist-gideon-ed
Download PDF
https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf
14th Amendment Citizens
Constitution of the United States of America Analysis and Interpretation
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service
Pages 1665-2047
Senate Document 112-9, pp. 1064, 1065, Footnote 37
Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty
By Randy E. Barnett
Pronunciation of the Name of the God; Yehovah [Bible]
The Chumash
The Stone Edition
Pg xxvi