Hypocricy in Action....

Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan;
September 8, 1951 (1)

Japan has this day signed a Treaty of Peace with the Allied Powers.(2) On the coming into force of that Treaty, Japan will not have the effective means to exercise its inherent right of self-defense because it has been disarmed.
.
There is danger to Japan in this situation because irresponsible militarism has not yet been driven from the world. Therefore Japan desires a Security Treaty with the United States of America to come into force simultaneously with the Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and Japan.
.
The Treaty of Peace recognizes that Japan as a sovereign nation has the right to enter into collective security arrangements, and further, the Charter of the United Nations recognizes that all nations possess an inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.
.
In exercise of these rights, Japan desires, as a provisional arrangement for its defense, that the United States of America should maintain armed forces of its own in and about Japan so as to deter armed attack upon Japan.
.
The United States of America, in the interest of peace and security, is presently willing to maintain certain of its armed forces in and about Japan, in the expectation, however, that Japan will itself increasingly assume responsibility for its own defense against direct and indirect aggression, always avoiding any armament which could be an offensive threat or serve other than to promote peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.
.
Accordingly, the two countries have agreed as follows:
.
ARTICLE I
.
Japan grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right, upon the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace and of this Treaty, to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about Japan. Such forces may be utilized to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East and to the security of Japan against armed attack from without, including assistance given at the express request of the Japanese Government to put down largescale internal riots and disturbances in Japan, caused through instigation or intervention by an outside power or powers.
.
ARTICLE II
.
During the exercise of the right referred to in Article I, Japan will not grant, without the prior consent of the United States of America, any bases or any rights, powers or authority whatsoever, in or relating to bases or the right of garrison or of maneuver, or transit of ground, air or naval forces to any third power.
.
ARTICLE III
.
The conditions which shall govern the disposition of armed forces of the United States of America in and about Japan shall be determined by administrative agreements between the two Governments.(3)
.
ARTICLE IV
.
This Treaty shall expire whenever in the opinion of the Governments of the United States of America and Japan there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements or such alternative individual or collective security dispositions as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance by the United Nations or otherwise of international peace and security in the Japan Area.
.
ARTICLE V
.
This Treaty shall be ratified by the United States of America and Japan and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Washington.(4)
.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.
DONE in duplicate at the city of San Francisco, in the English and Japanese languages, this eighth day of September, 1951.
.
(1) TIAS 2491, 3 UST 3329-3340. Ratification advised by the Senate, Mar. 20, 1952 ratified by the President, Apr. 15, 1952, entered into force, Apr. 28, 1952. Back
.
(2) Supra, pp. 425-440. Back
.
(3) See infra, pp. 2406-2423. Back
.
(3) Instruments of ratification were exchanged Apr. 28, 1952. Back
.
Well now, INHERENT RIGHT you say! Does anyone else see something VERY WRONG with this picture? Japan had ATTACKED THE United States without provocation. Japan was guilty of heinous war crimes – RAPE, MUTILATION AND TORTURE. Japan was guilty of GENOCIDE(S). And yet, a mere six years after the end of World War II, the United States was advocating that Japan can rearm herself? A little HYPOCRITICAL in consideration of what is going on in our country today, isn’t it? Not to mention the United Nations Charter!
.
Wonder if Japan had to do a Background check? Wouldn't that also be a violation of the Felon, (of the most dangerous type), in possession law?

Cato No 3

Fall 1787 Storing 2.6.12--20
.
The recital, or premises on which this new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all the thirteen parts, or states, into one great whole, under the firm [form?] of the United States, for all the various and important purposes therein set forth.--But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be, like a house divided against itself.
.
The governments of Europe have taken their limits and form from adventitious circumstances, and nothing can be argued on the motive of agreement from them; but these adventitious political principles, have nevertheless produced effects that have attracted the attention of philosophy, which has established axioms in the science of politics therefrom, as irrefragable as any in Euclid. It is natural, says Montesquieu, to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist: in a large one, there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are too great deposits to intrust in the hands of a single subject, an ambitious person soon becomes sensible that he may be happy, great, and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and that he might raise himself to grandeur, on the ruins of his country. In large republics, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; in a small one the interest of the public is easily perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses have a less extent, and of course are less protected--he also shews you, that the duration of the republic of Sparta, was owing to its having continued with the same extent of territory after all its wars; and that the ambition of Athens and Lacedemon to command and direct the union, lost them their liberties, and gave them a monarchy.
From this picture, what can you promise yourselves, on the score of consolidation of the United States, into one government--impracticability in the just exercise of it-- your freedom insecure--even this form of government limited in its continuance--the employments of your country disposed of to the opulent, to whose contumely you will continually be an object--you must risque much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals, whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind you--where, from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too misterious for you to understand, and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic; the latter, Mr. Locke remarks, is a government derived from neither nature, nor compact.
Political liberty, the great Montesquieu again observes, consists in security, or at least in the opinion we have of security; and this security therefore, or the opinion, is best obtained in moderate governments, where the mildness of the laws, and the equality of the manners, beget a confidence in the people, which produces this security, or the opinion. This moderation in governments, depends in a great measure on their limits, connected with their political distribution.
.
The extent of many of the states in the Union, is at this time, almost too great for the superintendence of a republican form of government, and must one day or other, revolve into more vigorous ones, or by separation be reduced into smaller, and more useful, as well as moderate ones. You have already observed the feeble efforts of Massachusetts against their insurgents; with what difficulty did they quell that insurrection; and is not the province of Main at this moment, on the eve of separation from her. The reason of these things is, that for the security of the property of the community, in which expressive term Mr. Locke makes life, liberty, and estate, to consist--the wheels of a free republic are necessarily slow in their operation; hence in large free republics, the evil sometimes is not only begun, but almost completed, before they are in a situation to turn the current into a contrary progression: the extremes are also too remote from the usual seat of government, and the laws therefore too feeble to afford protection to all its parts, and insure domestic tranquility without the aid of another principle. If, therefore, this state [New York], and that of N. Carolina, had an army under their controul, they never would have lost Vermont, and Frankland, nor the state of Massachusetts suffer an insurrection, or the dismemberment of her fairest district, but the exercise of a principle which would have prevented these things, if we may believe the experience of ages, would have ended in the destruction of their liberties.
.
Will this consolidated republic, if established, in its exercise beget such confidence and compliance, among the citizens of these states, as to do without the aid of a standing army--I deny that it will.--The mal-contents in each state, who will not be a few, nor the least important, will be exciting factions against it--the fear of a dismemberment of some of its parts, and the necessity to enforce the execution of revenue laws (a fruitful source of oppression) on the extremes and in the other districts of the government, will incidentally, and necessarily require a permanent force, to be kept on foot--will not political security, and even the opinion of it, be extinguished? can mildness and moderation exist in a government, where the primary incident in its exercise must be force? will not violence destroy confidence, and can equality subsist, where the extent, policy, and practice of it, will naturally lead to make odious distinctions among citizens?
.
The people, who may compose this national legislature from the southern states, in which, from the mildness of the climate, the fertility of the soil, and the value of its productions, wealth is rapidly acquired, and where the same causes naturally lead to luxury, dissipation, and a passion for aristocratic distinctions; where slavery is encouraged, and liberty of course, less respected, and protected; who know not what it is to acquire property by their own toil, nor to oeconomise with the savings of industry--will these men therefore be as tenacious of the liberties and interests of the more northern states, where freedom, independence, industry, equality, and frugality, are natural to the climate and soil, as men who are your own citizens, legislating in your own state, under your inspection, and whose manners, and fortunes, bear a more equal resemblance to your own?
.
It may be suggested, in answer to this, that whoever is a citizen of one state, is a citizen of each, and that therefore he will be as interested in the happiness and interest of all, as the one he is delegated from; but the argument is fallacious, and, whoever has attended to the history of mankind, and the principles which bind them together as parents, citizens, or men, will readily perceive it. These principles are, in their exercise, like a pebble cast on the calm surface of a river, the circles begin in the center, and are small, active, and forcible, but as they depart from that point, they lose their force, and vanish into calmness.
.
The strongest principle of union resides within our domestic walls. The ties of the parent exceed that of any other; as we depart from home, the next general principle of union is amongst citizens of the same state, where acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, nourish affection, and attachment; enlarge the circle still further, and, as citizens of different states, though we acknowledge the same national denomination, we lose the ties of acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, and thus, by degrees, we lessen in our attachments, till, at length, we no more than acknowledge a sameness of species. Is it therefore, from certainty like this, reasonable to believe, that inhabitants of Georgia, or New-Hampshire, will have the same obligations towards you as your own, and preside over your lives, liberties, and property, with the same care and attachment? Intuitive reason, answers in the negative.
.
DAMN IT!

A Maryland Farmer no. 1

15 Feb. 1788
Storing 5.1.4--16
.
To assert that bills of rights have always originated from, or been considered as grants of the King or Prince, and that the liberties which they secure are the gracious concessions of the sovereign, betrays an equal ignorance of history and of law, or what in effect amounts to the same thing a violent and precipitate zeal.
.
I believe no writer in the most venal age, has ever openly asserted this doctrine, but the prostituted, rotten Sir Robert Filmer, and Aristides--And the man who at this day would contend in England that their bill of rights is the grant of the King, would find the general contempt his only security--In saying this, I sincerely regret that the name of Aristides should be joined with that of Sir Robert Filmer, and I freely acknowledge that no contemptible degree of talents, and integrity render him who uses it, much more worthy of the very respectable association he has selected for himself--But the errors of such men alone are dangerous--the man who has too much activity of mind, or restlessness to be quiet, qualities to engage public and private esteem, talents to form and support an opinion, fortitude to avow it, and too much pride to be convinced, will at all times have weight in a free country, (especially where indolence is the general characteristic) though that weight he will always find impaired in proportion as he indulges levity, caprice and passion.
.
I will confine my inquiry to the English constitution--Example there, is in a great measure law here--and the authority of an American judge on a point of English law, should be digested with coolness and promulgated with caution, because it is frequently conclusory.
.
The celebrated and only bill of rights of Great-Britain, which is considered as the supreme law of the land, and not to be questioned or impeached in their courts, was the work of that convention of lords and commons in 1688, which declared that King James 2d, had abdicated the crown, and that the throne had thereby become vacant, and who after they had compleated and asserted this glorious declaration of the unalienable rights of their fellow citizens, pursuing the peculiar duty of a convention, conferred the crown of the three kingdoms on an alien and foreigner, William the 3d.
.
Can any man imagine that this convention could at that time, have considered these rights as the grant of a King, whom they previously declared to have abdicated the throne, or the gracious concessions of a Prince whom they were about to deprive forever of the crown? Or could they have considered this bill of rights as the concession of Prince William, at that time a foreigner and alien, not entitled to hold a foot of land, or any of the common rights of citizenship, and who could afterwards only derive his title to the crown from the same source, which gave authority and sanction to this fundamental and most inestimable law? or, could the British nation at that time, or ever since, have viewed this declaration, as the grant and concession of a King or Prince, when no King or Prince was at that time in existence?--But should there remain any minds yet unsatisfied, I refer such to the debates of that convention, which are preserved in Grey's debates in parliament, and there will be found in them, the principles of equal liberty, the inherent and unalienable rights of men, as amply and ably discussed, and as fully recognized by the authors of that blessing, the artists of that British palladium, as ever they have since been by the animated patriots of America, or the present age.--I also refer them to an inestimable little treatise composed on this occasion by that accomplished lawyer and patriot, afterwards the Lord Somers--High Chancellor of Great-Britain--then a member of the convention, and chiefly instrumental in their great work--a pamphlet that should find a place in the library of every American judge at least--Whoever peruses these, will discover undeniable evidence, that the British convention, considered this their declaration, as the concession of no Prince, but the Prince of Heaven--whom alone they acknowledged as the author of their liberties--they will there find that a bill of rights, is an enumeration of those conditions on which the individuals of the empire agreed to confirm the social compact; and consequently that no power, which they thus conditionally delegated to the majority (in whatever form organized) should be so exercised as to infringe and impair these their natural rights--not vested in SOCIETY, but reserved to each member thereof.
.
This was not the doctrine of that period alone--It was the common law and constitution of England, so asserted and maintained by the ablest lawyers of every age of the empire.--The petition of right, which came forward in the reign of Charles 1st, said to have been originally penned by the celebrated Lord Coke--although in its title a contradiction in terms, is yet in substance equally strong and clear--asserting the rights of the people to be coeval with the government--We find this principle strenuously and ably maintained through all the works of this great man, and to this doctrine he finally, with the devotion of a freeman, and the fortitude of an Englishman, sacrificed his vanity, his ambition and his avarice--This last act of an aged and venerable judge, has obliterated the errors of a youthful courtier--it has made his peace with posterity, who with gratitude and indulgence has forgiven the conduct of a court lawyer, which she might have punished with detestation, although she could not correct.
.
Here I cannot but observe what strenuous bill of rights men, all the great luminaries of the English law have been: to Lord Coke and Lord Somers, I will add that [ ] of human nature, Sir Matthew Hale, in whom were united true Christian piety, Roman fortitude, and an understanding more than human.
.
This perfect man although firmly opposed to the violences of the mad fanatics of the age, stood up almost alone in that parliament which restored the regal government, in favor of a bill of rights--but the tide of popular rage, hastening to place the worthless Charles on the throne of his more worthless ancestors, was too strong, and the voice of that man could not be heard, who was the delight of his own and the admiration of succeeding ages.
.
It is true, that something like the doctrine of Aristides was frequently the language of courtiers and sycophants in the feeble reigns of the arbitrary Stuarts--times of impotent and impudent usurpation--and they grounded their assertions on the form of the statute of magna charta, a statute much estemed for the many valuable rights it ascertains--the enacting words of which imply it to be an act of the King--But Aristides must know that this was the frequent form of the ancient statutes, sometime it is the King alone enacts, sometime the King with advice and consent of the great men and Barons, and sometimes the three estates--Even at this day, the King uses these words in passing laws that bear the same implication; and we see even in America acts of authority issue under the name and signature of the Governor alone, who has not a voice unless the council are divided--But as to the legal and acknowledged authority of the King at the time of enacting magna charta, there can remain but little doubt. Henry Bracton a contemporary lawyer and judge, who has left us a compleat and able treatise on the laws of England, is thus clear and express--Omnes quidem sub rege, ipse autem sub lege, all are subject to the King, but the King is subject to the law--It will hardly then be imagined, that the supreme law and constitution were the grants and concessions of a Prince, who was thus in theory and practice, subject himself to ordinary acts of legislation--But all these things are so amply discussed and the authorities so accurately collected in the publication of my Lord Somers, that a reference must be much more satisfactory than a repetition.
.
If I understand Aristides, he says that it would have been considered as an arrogant usurpation of sovereign rights in the members of convention, to have affixed a bill of rights--Can he reconcile this position with another opinion in his remarks, where he maintains that in offering this constitution, they could only act as private individuals, any of whom have a right to propose a constitution to the Americans to adopt at their discretion--In this view they could only have proposed--it is certain they could not have enacted a bill of rights--Nor would there have been any usurpation in WE the people, of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c. securing to ourselves and our posterity the following unalienable rights, &c. which is the stile of the new constitution--The convention have actually engrafted some of these natural rights, yet no one calls it an usurpation--nor can I believe that any of my fellow-citizens of the United States, would have discovered the least indignation, had they engrafted them all--The universal complaint has been that they have enumerated so few--But says Aristides, it would have been a work of great difficulty, if not impossible to have ascertained them--Are the fundamental rights of mankind at this day unknown? Are they so soon forgot? If they are not imprinted on our hearts, they are in several of the constitutions--Although various in form, they are certainly not contradictory in substance--It did not require the wisdom of a national convention to have reduced them into order, and such as would not have gained the suffrage of a majority, would never have been regretted by America--or, I will venture to assert, what I shall never believe, that the majority were very unworthy of the trust reposed in them--Nor yet can I believe, that the late convention were incompetent to a task that has never been undertaken in the separate States without success.
.
This constitution is to be the act of the individual members of the American empire--the highest source of terrestrial power with us--As it is a subsequent act, it not only repeals all prior acts of the same authority where it interferes with them--But being a government of the people of all the States, I do not know what right the citizens of Maryland for instance, have to expect that the citizens of Connecticut or New-Jersey, will be governed by the laws or constitution of Maryland--or what benefit a citizen of Maryland could derive from his bill of rights in a court of the United States, which can only be governed by the constitution and laws of the United States--Nor will it help the question to say, what will certainly be denied, that the future Congress may provide by law for this,--that an ordinary law of the United States can make, is an admission that it can unmake, and to submit the bills of rights of the separate States to the power of every annual national parliament, is a very uncertain tenure indeed.
.
If a citizen of Maryland can have no benefit of his own bill of rights in the confederal courts, and there is no bill of rights of the United States--how could he take advantage of a natural right founded in reason, could he plead it and produce Locke, Sydney, or Montesquieu as authority? How could he take advantage of any of the common law rights, which have heretofore been considered as the birthright of Englishmen and their descendants, could he plead them and produce the authority of the English judges in his support? Unquestionably not, for the authority of the common law arises from the express adoption by the several States in their respective constitutions, and that in various degrees and under different modifications--If admitted at all, I do not see to what extent, and if admitted, it must be admitted as unalterable by ordinary acts of legislation, which would be impossible--and it could never be of use to an individual, but in combating some national law infringing natural right.--To render this more intelligible--suppose for instance, that an officer of the United States should force the house, the asylum of a citizen, by virtue of a general warrant, I would ask, are general warrants illegal by the constitution of the United States? Would a court, or even a jury, but juries are no longer to exist, punish a man who acted by express authority, upon the bare recollection of what once was law and right? I fear not, especially in those cases which may strongly interest the passions of government, and in such only have general warrants been used--Suppose a case that must and will frequently happen, for such happen almost daily in England--That an officer of the customs should break open the dwelling, and violate the sanctuary of a freeman, in search for smuggled goods--impost and revenue laws are and from necessity must be in their nature oppressive--in their execution they may and will become intolerable to a free people, no remedy has been yet found equal to the task of detering and curbing the insolence of office, but a jury--It has become an invariable maxim of English juries, to give ruinous damages whenever an officer has deviated from the rigid letter of the law, or been guilty of an unnecessary act of insolence or oppression--It is true these damages to the individual, are frequently paid by government, upon a certificate of the judge that there was probable cause of suspicion--But the same reasons that would induce an English judge to give this certificate, would probably lead an American judge, who will be judge and jury too, to spare the public purse, if not favour a brother officer.
.
I could proceed with an enumeration of familiar [similar?] instances that must and will happen, that would be as alarming as prolix: but it is not my intention to ring an alarm bell--If I know myself I would rather conciliate than divide--But says Aristides the government may establish [ ] for such cases, though not commanded; what they will do I will not presume to say; but I can readily and will hereafter prove if they do, they will violate the constitution; and even admitting their power, it would be but a slender thread to [ ] so great a stake upon.
.
Here I must meet a position that has been ingeniously advanced--That all powers and rights not expressly given, [ ] consequently reserved--If this is not downright political nonsense, it is at least, untrue in theory and impossible in practice--until man is gifted with one of the most important attributes of the Deity--that of fore knowledge and [ ] it will be impossible to limit affirmatively legislative [ ]. When a people part with the legislative power to government they can no more say, you shall make such and such [ ] than they can say, such and such events shall happen--[ ] must be regulated by events--All the precaution that [ ] to human wisdom, is the exertion of a negative [ ] speaking thus in the language of a bill of rights, no [ ] shall authorize, no plea of necessity shall justify the legislature in making a law to abolish or infringe the freedom of the press, or the liberty of conscience, &c.--And even [ ] these bounds are expressly and clearly affirmed, we [ ] lament that they do not always prove an effectual safeguard against the power of government; but they are [ ] guard, and why shall we leave our citizens totally [ ]. A gentleman, in the Pennsylvania convention, of [ ] reputation, said, that the form of the constitution--the organization of power, is a bill of rights--he had then a defensible, but unformed idea floating in his imagination [ ] however, expressed it inaccurately, and unfortunately [ ] on the wrong side of his own question. A proper organization of power would most probably prevent a violation [ ] bill of rights and prove the best security of political [ ]. Such an organization is nothing more than a good [ ] a mint or die, that will make money in its proper form, [ ] the quantity of alloy must be regulated by law, or the people may be cheated by a debased currency--The truth is, that the rights of individuals are frequently opposed to the apparent interests of the majority--For this reason the greater the portion of political freedom in a form of government the greater the necessity of a bill of rights--often the natural rights of an individual are opposed to the presumed interests or heated passions of a large majority of [ ] democratic government; if these rights are not clearly and expressly ascertained, the individual must be lost; and for the truth of this I appeal to every man who has borne a part in the legislative councils of America. In such government the tyranny of the legislative is most to be dreaded.--In monarchical governments, the feelings of the majority [ ] most frequently on the side of the individual from the [ ] jealousy inseperably attendant on those forms of government, where the tyranny of the executive prevails tyranny whether exercised in the garb of a despot, or [ ] plain coat of a quaker, is equally detestable, and should be guarded against.
.
If a bill of rights was that essential requisite to a [ ] constitution, why was it omitted by a convention of the ablest men in America, a large majority of whom were unquestionably well disposed? This has been a natural inequity [inquiry?], and perhaps the true reason yet remains to be disclosed. I have been informed that the proposed constitution was carried through its several stages, in a very inoffensive form to the last, and that it did not assume its decided featues until days before the convention rose--the changes then effected produced much difference of opinion--created some [ ] and their patience was too much exhausted to make the necessary correspondent alterations and additions. These [ ] may, I believe, be depended on, but the inference is [ ] offered as conjecture--if true, we may attribute the omission of a bill of rights, and many other imperfections to [ ] rather than design.

Candidate Bill Montgomery for Arizona Attorney General has my vote....

Each story has a beginning and this is it. A friend of mine, whom is an ardent Second Amendment supporter and an attorney, E-Mailed me the following:

“I sent my $ 5.00 in. Let's pony up and get an AG, (Attorney General), that likes our RKBA.

“http://www.montgomery4ag.com/ to download a form. If we don't pay, we don't play with our toys to the same untrammeled degree.”

Many of the people reading this here on KABA, already have a pretty good idea as to my feelings about politicians. Arizona is where I’ve lived for the last 15 years, and it is my desire to continue to do so. Anyone that has read any of the articles posted here on KABA, also knows my stance on the Second Amendment. So, I thought, why not find out the potential AG’s stance on the Second Amendment? And sent him the following;

From: info@gunshowonthenet.com
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:50 PM
To: Volunteer@montgomery4ag.com
Subject: Concerning the Second Amendment....

Dear Mr. Montgomery,

Am very active in the political arena, especially concerning the Bill of Rights. Specifically the Second Amendment. An attorney friend of mine forwarded me your information. Currently, I have a website and five Blogs. The website and three of the Blogs are geared strictly towards the Second Amendment;

http://gunshowonthenet.com/index.html
http://amendmentii.blogspot.com/, (A collaborative effort with three other supporters).
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/
http://god1stand2nd.blogspot.com/

The reason for mentioning this, is to lead into the following. I've done an extensive amount of research concerning the Second Amendment. And am working on a summary of the intention of this specific Right. The title of the document is The Right, and it is a work in progress. For it grows as I uncover more factual pertinent data concerning the Second Amendment. How a politician responds to this work is how I determine my support, or lack thereof, for the politician.

It has been published on Free Market News Network, whom publishes much of my writings. As well as twice on Keep and Bear Arms.

Am earnestly searching for those interested in serving We The People in the true Constitutional sense of the word. And am willing to put forth considerable public backing and support of a candidate whom will rightfully serve.

Are you one of those candidates, sir?

Await Your Reply,

E. David Quammen
Citizen
GunShowOnTheNet.com

I remember thinking, ‘Won’t be hearing back from him!’ And went about doing other things. In just a little over an hour later I get the following reply from Mr. Montgomery;

From: Montgomery4AG
To: info@gunshowonthenet.com
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: RE: Concerning the Second Amendment....

Mr. Quammen,

Thank you for your e-mail. Just a few observations of the work as published on the Free Market News Network: 1) I believe, in reading the Preamble to the Constitution and the status of the several states at the time of the constitutional convention following the abysmal experiment under the Articles of Confederation, that we the people delegated the authority to the federal government under the Constitution – not the Sates. Each State is a separate entity formed by the people therein at the time each state’s constitution was passed with the citizens reserving unto themselves and their respective states rights not specifically delegated to the federal government. Consequently, I do not think it’s entirely accurate to propose that the states were formed under the Constitution; 2) as an Amendment to the Constitution; I would not characterize the Second amendment as being “attached.” As an Amendment, it is part and parcel and inseparable from the Constitution no less than any one of the original Articles ( as you state thereafter); 3) since it is the responsibility and duty of government to safeguard the rights of citizens, and since our Constitution merely enumerates rights already held by the citizenry, the Constitution cannot grant any right – it merely enumerates those the government is charged with safeguarding; 4) I would not argue that the Federalist Papers are part of the Constitution. That argument would require authority showing that each ratifying convention explicitly adopted the Constitution with the Federalist Papers as an express “dictionary of terms.” Instead, the Federalist papers are the best source of expounding on the ideas expressed in the Constitution and how the drafters intended the ideas to be put into practice and the principles to be used in their application. Without torturing anyone unnecessarily with contract law, that is the best approach to using the Federalist Papers as support for arguments regarding constitutional provisions.

All that being said, I agree with your conclusions. With respect to related ideas, I supported the “Castle Doctrine” as passed and signed into law in Arizona. As a former prosecutor, I believe that bad guys will still be able to be prosecuted while good guys will not have to fear defending themselves, their families, or their property, let alone have to worry about civil suits from thugs. I also believe that mandatory registration of firearm, the ordinance passed in San Francisco, and the actions of government officials in New Orleans are all repugnant to the Second Amendment (second in order, not in class). Lastly, I have been endorsed by the NRA’s political victory fund.

In closing, I believe I am one of the candidates you’ve outlined. Please feel free to review my website at: www.montgomery4ag.com and forward any questions/concerns. The only way for incumbents to be beaten is for citizens to be educated about the poor service they are receiving.

Sincerely,

Bill Montgomery

OK, Bill, you now have my undivided attention! So I did go to his website and like what I see! Went to Bill’s website and discovered he graduated from West Point! Some of the best leaders we’ve ever had in our nation were military men. (+) Then I find out Bill was a Tank Platoon Leader in Operation Desert Storm and received a Bronze Star. (++) Really starting to like this Bill guy, I thought to myself. So, I responded to Bill’s reply;

From: info@gunshowonthenet.com
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:31 AM
To: Montgomery4AG
Subject: Re: Concerning the Second Amendment....

Hello, Bill, if I may,

Thank you for such a well thought reply! It is refreshing indeed. It may do you well to place a statement, concerning your views, not just specifically on the Second to be sure. But, of course, concerning all of our Rights, on your website. Announce yourself as a guardian of our rights and for justice.

There is a growing aversion to politicians, as well as all government, that is growing in our country each day. We The People are looking for those amongst our fellows that will make a stand for what is right. Am just relaying my own perceptions, however, I believe to have an accurate reading of the pulse of our nation.

We The People sense we are at a turning point in our nation. There appears to be a distinct move, on the part of the left, for even further departure from true Republican principles. And even more alarming, an appearance that the right is prepared to march along side with the left. To be honest, this trend is frightening.

I see that you are a family man. And that you honorably served our country. Thank you, sir. Come from a military family myself. Tested out to become a Naval aviator, after obtaining a corrective waiver for my eyesight. But made a mistake, which caused the opportunity to serve to pass me by. Am now attempting to serve my country and my God in another fashion.

Perceive that we are in some troubling times. And that we will need, now perhaps more than ever, people of faith, high moral character and decisive action. To help We The People see the mark of our true higher calling. And to stand for truth and be a light along the dim path. We have done it before and we can do it again. It takes the whole energy of the people. And a strong, considerate wisdom found in those in positions of authority.

With you being a graduate of West Point, I need not remind you of the importance of leadership. We need people that have an understanding of tactics and how to properly battle. For we are, after all, in a battle to save our Republic. In my minds eye, I perceive education of the populace to be key. Just posted the following linked article on the GunShowOnTheNet.blog. The author outlines the importance in keeping the people educated on their rights. A concept, I must say, that I am in agreement with.

Have noticed a seemingly prevailing attitude of Us vs. Them, in regards to We The People and government. And have been doing my utmost in shattering this misconception. We all, after everything is said and done, are Americans. Rich and poor, and everything in between, at all levels and stations in life. We are all citizens of these United States of America.

The theme throughout the website and blogs, is foundation principles. These principles are what helped us to achieve greatness to begin with. I have also noticed that many of the particulars the founders warned about, are transpiring with an alarming frequency. Am attempting to stem this tide with the knowledge of Freedom and Liberty. And that there are duties and responsibilities to being a citizen. That it will involve both the citizens and their representatives in government. In order for there to be a positive and harmonious American life once again.

If you could write a statement concerning your views on our rights. I would be more than happy to post it where I can and help spread the message for your campaign.

Are you familiar with J.T. Ready? He is running in the East Valley for Mesa City Council. Have had some contact with him and he seems to have a good platform.

Thank you again for such a timely and well thought response. Wish you well in your campaign, and if I can be of any assistance, please - don't hesitate to ask.

Best Regards,

E. David Quammen
GunShowOnTheNet.com

Get up this morning and low and behold, find the following in my In box;

Statement on Rights:

It is the fundamental duty and obligation of government to protect and safeguard the rights of its citizens. In fulfilling this obligation, constant vigilance and fidelity to the Rule of Law is paramount for no government can maintain legitimacy by excusing the violation of civil rights with the claim that such action is necessary to protect civil rights. As the next Attorney General of Arizona, I pledge to insure that the civil rights of every Arizonan are respected, protected, and safeguarded. We cannot fulfill the promises of freedom and opportunity espoused in our federal founding documents and our own state constitution without a commitment to “justice for all.”

Bill Montgomery
Republican Candidate
Arizona Attorney General

Bill has my vote! And it would be a good thing that all citizens in Arizona, whom value their rights, give Bill their vote of confidence! Note to self - I wonder if we can clone Bill and get him in all over the country?
.
With the way things are looking in our country presently. It would be wise for all Americans concerned with their rights to get actively involved in finding and supporting good candidates. Our very freedom, and that of future generations, depends on it! Directly ask them where they stand, before giving support or your precious vote!

Federal Farmer No 16

In the following you will discover some very interesting bits of factual information that will make you wonder ‘What the h….?’ . The more I’ve read the documents surrounding the Constitution, during the period of debate concerning the instrument. The more I’m discovering, that what our supposed ‘representatives’ are doing to our Rights, can very well be considered as criminal. Our Bill of Rights was specifically enumerated so that they could not be touched upon at all by those in government.
.
And yet the Infringements continue unabated. How can this be? The author of Federal Farmer specifically outlines the exceptions of our Rights from government intrusions at all levels. And goes into a lengthy discourse concerning the importance of We The People being educated about our Rights.
.
This document proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our government is operating outside of the bounds placed on it. Our Rights have been and are continuing to be illegally encroached upon. This perversion must stop! Or, we will soon find ourselves in a dictatorship.
.
Federal Farmer No.16 -
.
20 Jan. 1788 Storing 2.8.196--203
.
Having gone through with the organization of the government, I shall now proceed to examine more particularly those clauses which respect its powers. I shall begin with those articles and stipulations which are necessary for accurately ascertaining the extent of powers, and what is given, and for guarding, limiting, and restraining them in their exercise. We often find, these articles and stipulations placed in bills of rights; but they may as well be incorporated in the body of the constitution, as selected and placed by themselves. The constitution, or whole social compact, is but one instrument, no more or less, than a certain number of articles or stipulations agreed to by the people, whether it consists of articles, sections, chapters, bills of rights, or parts of any other denomination, cannot be material. Many needless observations, and idle distinctions, in my opinion, have been made respecting a bill of rights. On the one hand, it seems to be considered as a necessary distinct limb of the constitution, and as containing a certain number of very valuable articles, which are applicable to all societies: and, on the other, as useless, especially in a federal government, possessing only enumerated power--nay, dangerous, as individual rights are numerous, and not easy to be enumerated in a bill or rights, and from articles, or stipulations, securing some of them, it may be inferred, that others not mentioned are surrendered. [These appear] to me to be general indefinite propositions without much meaning--and the man [James Wilson] who first advanced those of the latter description, in the present case, signed the federal constitution, which directly contradicts him. The supreme power is undoubtedly in the people, and it is a principle well established in my mind, that they reserve all powers not expressly delegated by them to those who govern; this is as true in forming a state as in forming a federal government. There is no possible distinction but this founded merely in the different modes of proceeding which take place in some cases. In forming a state constitution, under which to manage not only the great but the little concerns of a community: the powers to be possessed by the government are often too numerous to be enumerated; the people to adopt the shortest way often give general powers, indeed all powers, to the government, in some general words, and then, by a particular enumeration, take back, or rather say they however reserve certain rights as sacred, and which no laws shall be made to violate: hence the idea that all powers are given which are not reserved: but in forming a federal constitution, which ex vi termine, supposes state governments existing, and which is only to manage a few great national concerns, we often find it easier to enumerate particularly the powers to be delegated to the federal head, than to enumerate particularly the individual rights to be reserved; and the principle will operate in its full force, when we carefully adhere to it. When we particularly enumerate the powers given, we ought either carefully to enumerate the rights reserved, or be totally silent about them; we must either particularly enumerate both, or else suppose the particular enumeration of the powers given adequately draws the line between them and the rights reserved, particularly to enumerate the former and not the latter, I think most advisable: however, as men appear generally to have their doubts about these silent reservations, we might advantageously enumerate the powers given, and then in general words, according to the mode adopted in the 2d art. of the confederation, declare all powers, rights and privileges, are reserved, which are not explicitly and expressly given up. People, and very wisely too, like to be express and explicit about their essential rights, and not to be forced to claim them on the precarious and unascertained tenure of inferences and general principles, knowing that in any controversy between them and their rulers, concerning those rights, disputes may be endless, and nothing certain:--But admitting, on the general principle, that all rights are reserved of course, which are not expressly surrendered, the people could with sufficient certainty assert their rights on all occasions, and establish them with ease, still there are infinite advantages in particularly enumerating many of the most essential rights reserved in all cases: and as to the less important ones, we may declare in general terms, that all not expressly surrendered are reserved. We do not by declarations change the nature of things, or create new truths, but we give existence, or at least establish in the minds of the people truths and principles which they might never otherwise have thought of, or soon forgot. If a nation means its systems, religious or political, shall have duration, it ought to recognize the leading principles of them in the front page of every family book. What is the usefulness of a truth in theory, unless it exists constantly in the minds of the people, and has their assent:--we discern certain rights, as the freedom of the press, and the trial by jury, &c. which the people of England and of America of course believe to be sacred, and essential to their political happiness, and this belief in them is the result of ideas at first suggested to them by a few able men, and of subsequent experience; while the people of some other countries hear these rights mentioned with the utmost indifference; they think the privilege of existing at the will of a despot much preferable to them. Why this difference amongst beings every way formed alike. The reason of the difference is obvious--it is the effect of education, a series of notions impressed upon the minds of the people by examples, precepts and declarations. When the people of England got together, at the time they formed Magna Charta, they did not consider it sufficient, that they were indisputably entitled to certain natural and unalienable rights[;] not depending on silent titles, they, by a declaratory act, expressly recognized them, and explicitly declared to all the world, that they were entitled to enjoy those rights; they made an instrument in writing, and enumerated those they then thought essential, or in danger, and this wise men saw was not sufficient: and therefore, that the people might not forget these rights, and gradually become prepared for arbitrary government, their discerning and honest leaders caused this instrument to be confirmed near forty times, and to be read twice a year in public places, not that it would lose its validity without such confirmations, but to fix the contents of it in the minds of the people, as they successively come upon the stage.--Men, in some countries do not remain free, merely because they are entitled to natural and unalienable rights; men in all countries are entitled to them, not because their ancestors once got together and enumerated them on paper, but because, by repeated negociations and declarations, all parties are brought to realize them, and of course to believe them to be sacred. Were it necessary, I might shew the wisdom of our past conduct, as a people in not merely comforting ourselves that we were entitled to freedom, but in constantly keeping in view, in addresses, bills of rights, in news-papers, &c. the particular principles on which our freedom must always depend.
.
It is not merely in this point of view, that I urge the engrafting in the constitution additional declaratory articles. The distinction, in itself just, that all powers not given are reserved, is in effect destroyed by this very constitution, as I shall particularly demonstrate--and even independent of this, the people, by adopting the constitution, give many general undefined powers to congress, in the constitutional exercise of which, the rights in question may be effected. Gentlemen who oppose a federal bill of rights, or further declaratory articles, seem to view the subject in a very narrow imperfect manner. These have for their objects, not only the enumeration of the rights reserved, but principally to explain the general powers delegated in certain material points, and to restrain those who exercise them by fixed known boundaries. Many explanations and restrictions necessary and useful, would be much less so, were the people at large all well and fully acquainted with the principles and affairs of government. There appears to be in the constitution, a studied brevity, and it may also be probable, that several explanatory articles were omitted from a circumstance very common. What we have long and early understood ourselves in the common concerns of the community, we are apt to suppose is understood by others, and need not be expressed; and it is not unnatural or uncommon for the ablest men most frequently to make this mistake. To make declaratory articles unnecessary in an instrument of government, two circumstances must exist; the rights reserved must be indisputably so, and in their nature defined; the powers delegated to the government, must be precisely defined by the words that convey them, and clearly be of such extent and nature as that, by no reasonable construction, they can be made to invade the rights and prerogatives intended to be left in the people.
.
The first point urged, is, that all power is reserved not expressly given, that particular enumerated powers only are given, that all others are not given, but reserved, and that it is needless to attempt to restrain congress in the exercise of powers they possess not. This reasoning is logical, but of very little importance in the common affairs of men; but the constitution does not appear to respect it even in any view. To prove this, I might cite several clauses in it. I shall only remark on two or three. By article 1, section 9, "No title of nobility shall be granted by congress" Was this clause omitted, what power would congress have to make titles of nobility? in what part of the constitution would they find it? The answer must be, that congress would have no such power--that the people, by adopting the constitution, will not part with it. Why then by a negative clause, restrain congress from doing what it would have no power to do? This clause, then, must have no meaning, or imply, that were it omitted, congress would have the power in question, either upon the principle that some general words in the constitution may be so construed as to give it, or on the principle that congress possess the powers not expressly reserved. But this clause was in the confederation, and is said to be introduced into the constitution from very great caution. Even a cautionary provision implies a doubt, at least, that it is necessary; and if so in this case, clearly it is also alike necessary in all similar ones. The fact appears to be, that the people in forming the confederation, and the convention, in this instance, acted, naturally, they did not leave the point to be settled by general principles and logical inferences; but they settle the point in a few words, and all who read them at once understand them.
.
The trial by jury in criminal as well as in civil causes, has long been considered as one of our fundamental rights, and has been repeatedly recognized and confirmed by most of the state conventions. But the constitution expressly establishes this trial in criminal, and wholly omits it in civil causes. The jury trial in criminal causes, and the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, are already as effectually established as any of the fundamental or essential rights of the people in the United States. This being the case, why in adopting a federal constitution do we now establish these, and omit all others, or all others, at least with a few exceptions, such as again agreeing there shall be no ex post facto laws, no titles of nobility, &c. We must consider this constitution, when adopted, as the supreme act of the people, and in construing it hereafter, we and our posterity must strictly adhere to the letter and spirit of it, and in no instance depart from them: in construing the federal constitution, it will not be only impracticable, but improper to refer to the state constitutions. They are entirely distinct instruments and inferior acts: besides, by the people's now establishing certain fundamental rights, it is strongly implied, that they are of opinion, that they would not otherwise be secured as a part of the federal system, or be regarded in the federal administration as fundamental. Further, these same rights, being established by the state constitutions, and secured to the people, our recognizing them now, implies, that the people thought them insecure by the state establishments, and extinguished or put afloat by the new arrangement of the social system, unless re-established.--Further, the people, thus establishing some few rights, and remaining totally silent about others similarly circumstanced, the implication indubitably is, that they mean to relinquish the latter, or at least feel indifferent about them. Rights, therefore, inferred from general principles of reason, being precarious and hardly ascertainable in the common affairs of society, and the people, in forming a federal constitution, explicitly shewing they conceive these rights to be thus circumstanced, and accordingly proceed to enumerate and establish some of them, the conclusion will be, that they have established all which they esteem valuable and sacred. On every principle, then, the people especially having began, ought to go through enumerating, and establish particularly all the rights of individuals, which can by any possibility come in question in making and executing federal laws. I have already observed upon the excellency and importance of the jury trial in civil as well as in criminal causes, instead of establishing it in criminal causes only; we ought to establish it generally;--instead of the clause of forty or fifty words relative to this subject, why not use the language that has always been used in this country, and say, "the people of the United States shall always be entitled to the trial by jury." This would shew the people still hold the right sacred, and enjoin it upon congress substantially to preserve the jury trial in all cases, according to the usage and custom of the country. I have observed before, that it is the jury trial we want; the little different appendages and modifications tacked to it in the different states, are no more than a drop in the ocean: the jury trial is a solid uniform feature in a free government; it is the substance we would save, not the little articles of form.
.
Security against expost facto laws, the trial by jury, and the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, are but a part of those inestimable rights the people of the United States are entitled to, even in judicial proceedings, by the course of the common law. These may be secured in general words, as in New-York, the Western Territory, &c. by declaring the people of the United States shall always be entitled to judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law, as used and established in the said states. Perhaps it would be better to enumerate the particular essential rights the people are entitled to in these proceedings, as has been done in many of the states, and as has been done in England. In this case, the people may proceed to declare, that no man shall be held to answer to any offence, till the same be fully described to him; nor to furnish evidence against himself: that, except in the government of the army and navy, no person shall be tried for any offence, whereby he may incur loss of life, or an infamous punishment, until he be first indicted by a grand jury: that every person shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favourable to him, and to meet the witnesses against him face to face: that every person shall be entitled to obtain right and justice freely and without delay; that all persons shall have a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, or possessions; and that all warrants shall be deemed contrary to this right, if the foundation of them be not previously supported by oath, and there be not in them a special designation of persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and that no person shall be exiled or molested in his person or effects, otherwise than by the judgment of his peers, or according to the law of the land. A celebrated writer observes upon this last article, that in itself it may be said to comprehend the whole end of political society. These rights are not necessarily reserved, they are established, or enjoyed but in few countries: they are stipulated rights, almost peculiar to British and American laws. In the execution of those laws, individuals, by long custom, by magna charta, bills of rights &c. have become entitled to them. A man, at first, by act of parliament, became entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus--men are entitled to these rights and benefits in the judicial proceedings of our state courts generally: but it will by no means follow, that they will be entitled to them in the federal courts, and have a right to assert them, unless secured and established by the constitution or federal laws. We certainly, in federal processes, might as well claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, as to claim trial by a jury--the right to have council-- to have witnesses face to face--to be secure against unreasonable search warrants, &c. was the constitution silent as to the whole of them:--but the establishment of the former, will evince that we could not claim them without it; and the omission of the latter, implies they are relinquished, or deemed of no importance. These are rights and benefits individuals acquire by compact; they must claim them under compacts, or immemorial usage--it is doubtful, at least, whether they can be claimed under immemorial usage in this country: and it is, therefore, we generally claim them under compacts, as charters and constitutions.
.
The people by adopting the federal constitution, give congress general powers to institute a distinct and new judiciary, new courts, and to regulate all proceedings in them, under the eight limitations mentioned in a former letter; and the further one, that the benefits of the habeas corpus act shall be enjoyed by individuals. Thus general powers being given to institute courts, and regulate their proceedings, with no provision for securing the rights principally in question, may not congress so exercise those powers, and constitutionally too, as to destroy those rights? clearly, in my opinion, they are not in any degree secured. But, admitting the case is only doubtful, would it not be prudent and wise to secure them and remove all doubts, since all agree the people ought to enjoy these valuable rights, a very few men excepted, who seem to be rather of opinion that there is little or nothing in them? Were it necessary I might add many observations to shew their value and political importance.
.
The constitution will give congress general powers to raise and support armies. General powers carry with them incidental ones, and the means necessary to the end. In the exercise of these powers, is there any provision in the constitution to prevent the quartering of soldiers on the inhabitants? you will answer, there is not. This may sometimes be deemed a necessary measure in the support of armies; on what principle can the people claim the right to be exempt from this burden? they will urge, perhaps, the practice of the country, and the provisions made in some of the state constitutions--they will be answered, that their claim thus to be exempt is not founded in nature, but only in custom and opinion, or at best, in stipulations in some of the state constitutions, which are local, and inferior in their operation, and can have no controul over the general government--that they had adopted a federal constitution--had noticed several rights, but had been totally silent about this exemption--that they had given general powers relative to the subject, which, in their operation, regularly destroyed the claim. Though it is not to be presumed, that we are in any immediate danger from this quarter, yet it is fit and proper to establish, beyond dispute, those rights which are particularly valuable to individuals, and essential to the permanency and duration of free government. An excellent writer observes, that the English, always in possession of their freedom, are frequently unmindful of the value of it: we, at this period, do not seem to be so well off, having, in some instances abused ours; many of us are quite disposed to barter it away for what we call energy, coercion, and some other terms we use as vaguely as that of liberty--There is often as great a rage for change and novelty in politics, as in amusements and fashions.
.
All parties apparently agree, that the freedom of the press is a fundamental right, and ought not to be restrained by any taxes, duties, or in any manner whatever. Why should not the people, in adopting a federal constitution, declare this, even if there are only doubts about it. But, say the advocates, all powers not given are reserved:--true; but the great question is, are not powers given, in the exercise of which this right may be destroyed? The people's or the printers claim to a free press, is founded on the fundamental laws, that is, compacts, and state constitutions, made by the people. The people, who can annihilate or alter those constitutions, can annihilate or limit this right. This may be done by giving general powers, as well as by using particular words. No right claimed under a state constitution, will avail against a law of the union, made in pursuance of the federal constitution: therefore the question is, what laws will congress have a right to make by the constitution of the union, and particularly touching the press? By art. 1. sect. 8. congress will have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excise. By this congress will clearly have power to lay and collect all kind of taxes whatever--taxes on houses, lands, polls, industry, merchandize, &c.--taxes on deeds, bonds, and all written instruments--on writs, pleas, and all judicial proceedings, on licences, naval officers papers, &c. on newspapers, advertisements, &c. and to require bonds of the naval officers, clerks, printers, &c. to account for the taxes that may become due on papers that go through their hands. Printing, like all other business, must cease when taxed beyond its profits; and it appears to me, that a power to tax the press at discretion, is a power to destroy or restrain the freedom of it. There may be other powers given, in the exercise of which this freedom may be effected; and certainly it is of too much importance to be left thus liable to be taxed, and constantly to constructions and inferences. A free press is the channel of communication as to mercantile and public affairs; by means of it the people in large countries ascertain each others sentiments; are enabled to unite, and become formidable to those rulers who adopt improper measures. Newspapers may sometimes be the vehicles of abuse, and of many things not true; but these are but small inconveniencies, in my mind, among many advantages. A celebrated writer, I have several times quoted, speaking in high terms of the English liberties, says, "lastly the key stone was put to the arch, by the final establishment of the freedom of the press." I shall not dwell longer upon the fundamental rights, to some of which I have attended in this letter, for the same reasons that these I have mentioned, ought to be expressly secured, lest in the exercise of general powers given they may be invaded: it is pretty clear, that some other of less importance, or less in danger, might with propriety also be secured.
.
God, save the Republic!

The AntiFederalist No. 09

The Antifederalist Papers
.
No. 9
.
A Consolidated Government is a Tyranny
.
Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787.
.
We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble-and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, "that all men are born equal"-beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy.
.
lst. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though totally incapable of thinking or acting in governmental matters) are more readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in something like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the popular name of the House of Representatives. But to guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill they bring forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. Nor have we allowed the populace the right to elect their representatives annually . . . lest this body should be too much under the influence and control of their constituents, and thereby prove the "weatherboard of our grand edifice, to show the shiftings of every fashionable gale,"-for we have not yet to learn that little else is wanting to aristocratize the most democratical representative than to make him somewhat independent of his political creators. We have taken away that rotation of appointment which has so long perplexed us-that grand engine of popular influence. Every man is eligible into our government from time to time for life. This will have a two-fold good effect. First, it prevents the representatives from mixing with the lower class, and imbibing their foolish sentiments, with which they would have come charged on re-election.
.
2d. They will from the perpetuality of office be under our eye, and in a short time will think and act like us, independently of popular whims and prejudices. For the assertion "that evil communications corrupt good manners," is not more true than its reverse. We have allowed this house the power to impeach, but we have tenaciously reserved the right to try. We hope gentlemen, you will see the policy of this clause-for what matters it who accuses, if the accused is tried by his friends. In fine, this plebian house will have little power, and that little be rightly shaped by our house of gentlemen, who will have a very extensive influence-from their being chosen out of the genteeler class ... It is true, every third senatorial seat is to be vacated duennually, but two-thirds of this influential body will remain in office, and be ready to direct or (if necessary) bring over to the good old way, the young members, if the old ones should not be returned. And whereas many of our brethren, from a laudable desire to support their rank in life above the commonalty, have not only deranged their finances, but subjected their persons to indecent treatment (as being arrested for debt, etc.) we have framed a privilege clause, by which they may laugh at the fools who trusted them. But we have given out, that this clause was provided, only that the members might be able without interruption, to deliberate on the important business of their country.
.
We have frequently endeavored to effect in our respective states, the happy discrimination which pervades this system; but finding we could not bring the states into it individually, we have determined ... and have taken pains to leave the legislature of each free and independent state, as they now call themselves, in such a situation that they will eventually be absorbed by our grand continental vortex, or dwindle into petty corporations, and have power over little else than yoaking hogs or determining the width of cart wheels. But (aware that an intention to annihilate state legislatures, would be objected to our favorite scheme) we have made their existence (as a board of electors) necessary to ours. This furnishes us and our advocates with a fine answer to any clamors that may be raised on this subject. We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A name we thought proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a silly people who are so foolishly fond of a Republican government, that we were obliged to accommodate in names and forms to them, in order more effectually to secure the substance of our proposed plan; but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector). I repeat it, what have we to fear armed with such powers, with a president at our head who is captain- -general of the army, navy and militia of the United States, who can make and unmake treaties, appoint and commission ambassadors and other ministers, who can grant or refuse reprieves or pardons, who can make judges of the supreme and other continental courts-in short, who will be the source, the fountain of honor, profit and power, whose influence like the rays of the sun, will diffuse itself far and wide, will exhale all democratical vapors and break the clouds of popular insurrection? But again gentlemen, our judicial power is a strong work, a masked battery, few people see the guns we can and will ere long play off from it. For the judicial power embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting ambassadors or 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; 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."
.
Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the ingenuity or sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of the above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in all cases-and if so, how fallen are state judicatures-and must not every provincial law yield to our supreme flat? Our constitution answers yes. . . . And finally we shall entrench ourselves so as to laugh at the cabals of the commonalty. A few regiments will do at first; it must be spread abroad that they are absolutely necessary to defend the frontiers. Now a regiment and then a legion must be added quietly; by and by a frigate or two must be built, still taking care to intimate that they are essential to the support of our revenue laws and to prevent smuggling. We have said nothing about a bill of rights, for we viewed it as an eternal clog upon our designs, as a lock chain to the wheels of government-though, by the way, as we have not insisted on rotation in our offices, the simile of a wheel is ill. We have for some time considered the freedom of the press as a great evil-it spreads information, and begets a licentiousness in the people which needs the rein more than the spur; besides, a daring printer may expose the plans of government and lessen the consequence of our president and senate-for these and many other reasons we have said nothing with respect to the "right of the people to speak and publish their sentiments" or about their "palladiums of liberty" and such stuff. We do not much like that sturdy privilege of the people-the right to demand the writ of habeas corpus. We have therefore reserved the power of refusing it in cases of rebellion, and you know we are the judges of what is rebellion.... Our friends we find have been assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at large-frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other-are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms of examination--which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS-to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people-we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit.
.
Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal.
.
MONTEZUMA
.
You'll have to excuse me, I think I'm going to be sick to my stomach....