John Smilie Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention

28 Nov. 1787 McMaster 249--51, 254--56
.
I expected, Mr. President, that the honorable gentleman [James Wilson] would have proceeded to a full and explicit investigation of the proposed system, and that he would have made some attempts to prove that it was calculated to promote the happiness, power and general interests of the United States. I am sorry that I have been mistaken in this expectation, for surely the gentleman's talents and opportunities would have enabled him to furnish considerable information upon this important subject; but I shall proceed to make a few remarks upon those words in the preamble of this plan, which he has considered of so super-excellent a quality. Compare them, Sir, with the language used in forming the state constitution, and however superior they may be to the terms of the great charter of England; still, in common candor, they must yield to the more sterling expressions employed in this act. Let these speak for themselves:
.
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
"That the people of this state have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.
.
"That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.
.
"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or set of men, who are a part only of that community. And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal."
.
But the gentleman takes pride in the superiority of this short preamble when compared with Magna Charta--why, sir, I hope the rights of men are better understood at this day than at the framing of that deed, and we must be convinced that civil liberty is capable of still greater improvement and extension, than is known even in its present cultivated state. True, sir, the supreme authority naturally rests in the people, but does it follow, that therefore a declaration of rights would be superfluous? Because the people have a right to alter and abolish government, can it therefore be inferred that every step taken to secure that right would be superfluous and nugatory? The truth is, that unless some criterion is established by which it could be easily and constitutionally ascertained how far our governors may proceed, and by which it might appear when they transgress their jurisdiction, this idea of altering and abolishing government is a mere sound without substance. Let us recur to the memorable declaration of the 4th of July, 1776. Here it is said:
.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws [of nature and] of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
.
"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 when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Now, Sir, if in the proposed plan, the gentleman can show any similar security for the civil rights of the people, I shall certainly be relieved from a weight of objection to its adoption, and I sincerely hope, that as he has gone so far, he will proceed to communicate some of the reasons (and undoubtedly they must have been powerful ones) which induced the late federal convention to omit a bill of rights, so essential in the opinion of many citizens to a perfect form of government.
. . . . .
The arguments which have been urged, Mr. President, have not, in my opinion, satisfactorily shown that a bill of rights would have been an improper, nay, that it is not a necessary appendage to the proposed system. As it has been denied that Virginia possesses a bill of rights, I shall on that subject only observe that Mr. Mason, a gentleman certainly of great information and integrity, has assured me that such a thing does exist, and I am persuaded I shall be able at a future period to lay it before the convention. But, Sir, the state of Delaware has a bill of rights, and I believe one of the honorable members (Mr. M'Kean) who now contests the necessity and propriety of that instrument, took a very conspicuous part in the formation of the Delaware government. It seems, however, that the members of the federal convention were themselves convinced, in some degree, of the expediency and propriety of a bill of rights, for we find them expressly declaring that the writ of habeas corpus and the trial by jury in criminal cases shall not be suspended or infringed. How does this indeed agree with the maxim that whatever is not given is reserved? Does it not rather appear from the reservation of these two articles that everything else, which is not specified, is included in the powers delegated to the government? This, Sir, must prove the necessity of a full and explicit declaration of rights; and when we further consider the extensive, the undefined powers vested in the administrators of this system, when we consider the system itself as a great political compact between the governors and the governed, a plain, strong, and accurate criterion by which the people might at once determine when, and in what instance their rights were violated, is a preliminary, without which, this plan ought not to be adopted. So loosely, so inaccurately are the powers which are enumerated in this constitution defined, that it will be impossible, without a test of that kind, to ascertain the limits of authority, and to declare when government has degenerated into oppression. In that event the contest will arise between the people and the rulers: "You have exceeded the powers of your office, you have oppressed us," will be the language of the suffering citizen. The answer of the government will be short--"We have not exceeded our power; you have no test by which you can prove it." Hence, Sir, it will be impracticable to stop the progress of tyranny, for there will be no check but the people, and their exertions must be futile and uncertain; since it will be difficult, indeed, to communicate to them the violation that has been committed, and their proceedings will be neither systematical nor unanimous. It is said, however, that the difficulty of framing a bill of rights was insurmountable; but, Mr. President, I cannot agree in this opinion. Our experience, and the numerous precedents before us, would have furnished a very sufficient guide. At present there is no security even for the rights of conscience, and under the sweeping force of the sixth article, every principle of a bill of rights, every stipulation for the most sacred and invaluable privileges of man, are left at the mercy of government.

.
I, for one, like this John Smilie guy! He makes a LOT of sense, doesn’t he? Now, why do you suppose we don’t have guys like him in government anymore? John actually spoke as if he really cared for his constituents! He clearly defined the role of government. And expressed the fears, concerning the proposed Constitution, quite succinctly. Fears that have proven to have a very real basis, I might add….

The First Law of Nature

My 5/19/06 (pm) encounter with the Phoenix 'Police'.....

Just had a run in with about 6 of Phoenix's Gestapo. The dogs were barking so I went outside to the alley to see what's up. An officer shined a light on me and then pulled up. Tells me to keep my hands where he can see them. No problem. Then he tells me 'I need for you to give me your gun'. And I said no, you don't, I've got Rights. He stated 'My safety comes first.' In turn I said, think you have that backwards. I'm the citizen and you are the servant. He then says "I don't need a civics lesson, are you going to comply or not?" I then say I have a Constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear arms, you are a public servant and have no right to disarm me. I've presented no threat to you and you are not justified to disarm me. He then calls in the 'goon' squad.
.
The goon squad, sensing the possibility for blood-letting, got there real fast of course. I did offer him the gun rather than being bludgeoned into submission. Which he promptly unloaded. By this time there are 6 of them there. And he stated about dept. 'policy' and the safety of the police taking precedence. I then told them that they were trained wrong then. The citizen takes prcedence - NOT the servant. Who do you suppose pays your salary, I asked? Then went on to say that the training they are giving is that which promotes the 'us' vs. 'them' mentality. And they would have much more support of the community if they treated the citizens with the respect justly due them. Only the one officer had argued the point. The rest stood back looking at each other.
.
The reason I'm going into this in detail. Is to advise that this is how L.E. is now being trained. That THEY are superior to We The People. And that their 'safety' takes precedence over that of We The People. I asked them if that made any sense. One said we have to do what we are trained to do.
.
Then I asked what about the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Do you realize the reason why the citizen is supposed to be armed? He then says, no but I'm sure your going to tell me. And, of course I then told him how it was as a protection against usurpation, arbitrary rule and the tyranny of government. And that the Citizen does, in fact, take precedence over the 'public servant'. He stopped talking and then of course they all had to leave, (before the donut shop closed, I imagine).
.
Should point out that I have had many dealings with Police officers when I managed the gun store. And, that the vast majority I've encountered seemed like very decent people. Not exhibiting the 'superior' attitude that seems so prevalent these days. So, I'm not making a blanket condemnation here. That the type of 'training', mentioned previously, that is being employed. Is something that goes beyond condemnation is what I contend. For it has far more sinister implications. It is the sign of a deliberately taught institutional mindset that will lead to very deadly consequences.
.
So, this is what we are up against people. L.E. is being trained to think that they are superior to us. That the welfare of the servant outweighs that of the Citizen. A very dangerous precedent to be setting. They are now taught that they are our 'rulers'. Wonder if any of them had ever learned that it is We The People, as spelled out in the Federalist Papers, whom are the Legitimate and Ultimate Authority? Doesn't appear to be the case. Sickening.....

Very much worthy of repetition....

In the headline is linked an article published on News With Views, By Albert Burns November 9, 2004. Happened across the article while doing a search concerning the apparent 'communist agenda' trend appearing across the country. Was so struck by the points that Mr. Burns made that I contacted him. Turns out Albert is a Patriot in the highest degree! He agreed to allow me to republish his work and I thank him for it. Following is his article, in its entirety:
.

AND NOT A SHOT IS FIRED!
.
.
By Albert Burns
November 9, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

To the average American, those words would not make much sense or have much meaning. They are, however, a very accurate description of just how our governmental system has been and is being changed before our eyes.
.
The technique is not new, in fact it dates back millennia. The current name given to the technique is called "parliamentary revolution." Nikita Krushchev in his report to the Communist 20th Congress, February 14, 1956 noted: "In this connection the question arises of whether it is possible to go over to socialism by using parliamentary means...."
.
About a year later, a conference on theory was held at the Communist party's political University in Prague, Czechoslovakia. The results of that conference became a communist document which British intelligence heard about and tried hard to obtain. They tried through several channels but were always advised that it was "out of print." Three years later, a copy was finally obtained in 1961. It was translated into English and was published in the United States in October, 1961.
.
The English title assigned to the document is : "And Not A Shot Is Fired." The original Czech title, translated to English is: "How Parliament Can Play a Revolutionary Part In The Transition To Socialism, And The Role Of The Popular Masses." Certainly not something you would pick out at the local bookstore for an evening's casual reading.
.
The author of the document was Jan Kozak, a Czech. At the time he wrote the document he was a member of the Secretariat of the Czech Communist Party. It is not easy reading by the furthest stretch of the imagination. Its enormous value lies in its complete authenticity. The dull text presents a fascinating story of the peaceful revolution which transferred Czechoslovakia over to the Communists.
.
In an ideal world, once the information became known, it is a tale which would have been taught to every American citizen in high school or even earlier. The fact that it has been denied to the American people is an indictment of our mass media and our education system.
To quote from the Introduction to the U.S. version of the book:
.
"How does the technique work? It may, for instance, be applied to some easily discoverable public concern. To answer the need, a piece of "enabling legislation" is suggested, carrying no authority, expressed or implied. It sets up an "agency." The agency, once established, follows normal agency behavior. The need becomes more precisely defined. A modicum of authority is requested. Pressures are organized, artificial and real, from "above" and from "below." The requested authority is voted, and pressures wane. In due course, further authority is suggested, and new coalitions of pressure appear. All in good time an Authority is there, self-contained; a new instrument of power has arisen, sufficient unto itself. This instrument may be local, regional or nationwide. Its key word is Authority. In the beginning, this word is seldom employed.
"By such parliamentary means a democratic and representative government can be made authoritative, legally, and piece by piece. The form remains, an empty shell. Its philosophy and its content are gone. The person, the individual, who one year is free and independent, is next year just a little more restricted. Then a little more, and a little more. Suddenly, overnight, he no longer is a person. He is a cog, being moved inexorably by the monolithic machinery of the State. .
"And not a shot is fired!"
.
The Founding Fathers clearly understood the dangers of placing power in the hands of Congress. In The Federalist, No 47; Par. 5, Madison wrote: "...it is against the enterprising ambition of this department [the Congress} that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions."
.
Those who wrote the Constitution based their hopes for the future of this country on the people. They placed an inescapable responsibility on the citizens: the will of the people, who would elect legislative bodies, to watch over and restrict the activities of those they would elect. As long as the balance between legislative greed for power and the will of the people to restrict that thirst remained active, no legislative body whether national, state or local, could vote the people's freedoms away.
.
The technique Jan Kozak wrote about takes those opposing forces and uses them for exactly opposite ends. Both the legislature AND the people are deliberately manipulated to destroy the balance.
.
To quote again from the Introduction: "Parliament" (the legislature) is slowly maneuvered "into a direct instrument for the victory of the socialist revolution", and the technique is precisely illustrated. (P.15)
.
"First, the legislative power, at all governmental levels,-- local, state and national- is manipulated as pressure 'from above'; then the people's power is manipulated as 'pressure from below'. Concurrently, a 'wide popularization of the demands and slogans of the policy of the Communists' is promoted, serving 'as a means of revolutionary education of the popular masses.' (P. 19) Gradually, and by cooperative legislative action, business, industry, agriculture, finance, the professions, and even living conditions come under the domination of The State. (P. 20) (Emphasis in the original.)
.
"Thus, by 'a democratic and constitutional course', the legislature is reconstituted 'into an instrument of the transformation of the whole state and its machinery...[and the] revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into a socialist one...[proceeds] absolutely legally." (P. 33)
The brilliant mechanisms of self-government our Founding Fathers established for us have been (and ARE) being used to destroy its very character.
.
The revolution has been developed very quietly and stealthily with due respect for the legal forms. None of this is dramatic. Indeed, those who have been knowingly subverting our government and stealing our freedom avoid publicity and drama like the plague. Slowly, insidiously, one bit of our governmental structure has been removed and a different piece slipped unobtrusively in its place, ALWAYS maintaining the appearance and form of the original. Does anyone out there recognize just how far this process has been advanced in the United States? In our next column, we will examine just how this technique is applied.
.
AND NOT A SHOT IS FIRED!
.
© 2004 Albert Burns - All Rights Reserved, (Reprinted with permission from the author).
.
Albert Burns was born 1924 and brought up in Elizabeth, NJ. Enlisted in the Air Force in September, 1942. Sent to Boca Raton, Florida to begin Officer training. Graduated as a Second Lieutenant. Attended University of Arizona to study Civil Engineering.
.
Albert moved to Lima, Peru as Assistant Supervisor of Construction, with the U.S. Foreign Buildings Division of the State Department. Worked on the construction of the new U.S. Embassy Office Building in Lima. After completion, he was transferred to Mexico City to work on the construction of the new Embassy.
.
Joined the John Birch Society in 1967. Was a chapter leader, section leader and eventually served for several years as the Coordinator in Hawaii. Once he got on the Internet about ten years ago, he began writing articles in an effort to alert fellow Americans to what was taking place in America which the vast majority were unaware of. He has been studying and writing, ever since. E-Mail: avburns@mindspring.com
.
Interesting, huh? Somewhat brings into focus the current day situation with our Second Amendment Rights, doesn't it? Which, by the way Mr. Albert Burns is an ardent supporter of.
.
Now then. We see what the true problem that we are faced with. What, pray tell, are We The People going to do about it? Do we continue to allow these politicians, along with their followers/instigators/minons to continue pursuing this communist/socialist agenda? Whose clear intention, is in subverting and perverting our Constitutional Republic? Or, do we get out from in front of the TV, and reassert our lawful Legitimate and Ultimate Authority? We do, after all for the time being, still have the right of choice. What is our choice to be?
.
Perhaps a little reminder of the history of Totalitarian Regimes might serve us well, in helping to make up our minds. Is that what we truly want for ourselves and our progeny? Don't know about you, but that is NOT my idea of fun.
.
Once again, the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. That was formed by "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
.
As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, in a 1797 letter to James Monroe; "Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established."
.
These mayors and other politicians that are after our Right were sworn by oath;
.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will SUPPORT and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION of the United States against ALL ENEMIES, foreign and DOMESTIC; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and TRUTHFULLY discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. SO HELP ME GOD."
.
Does it follow to reason that these supposed officials should be allowed to disassemble the very structure for which government was formed to protect in the first place? I, for one, will strongly contend against that notion. But, that's just me.....How about you?

John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions....

John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States
.
1787 Works 6:6--8, 114, 116--17
.
Marchamont Nedham lays it down as a fundamental principle and an undeniable rule, "That the people, (that is, such as shall be successively chosen to represent the people,) are the best keepers of their own liberties, and that for many reasons. First, because they never think of usurping over other men's rights, but mind which way to preserve their own."
Our first attention should be turned to the proposition itself,--"The people are the best keepers of their own liberties."
.
But who are the people?
.
"Such as shall be successively chosen to represent them."
.
Here is a confusion both of words and ideas, which, though it may pass with the generality of readers in a fugitive pamphlet, or with a majority of auditors in a popular harangue, ought, for that very reason, to be as carefully avoided in politics as it is in philosophy or mathematics. If by the people is meant the whole body of a great nation, it should never be forgotten, that they can never act, consult, or reason together, because they cannot march five hundred miles, nor spare the time, nor find a space to meet; and, therefore, the proposition, that they are the best keepers of their own liberties, is not true. They are the worst conceivable; they are no keepers at all. They can neither act, judge, think or will, as a body politic or corporation. If by the people is meant all the inhabitants of a single city, they are not in a general assembly, at all times, the best keepers of their own liberties, nor perhaps at any time, unless you separate from them the executive and judicial power, and temper their authority in legislation with the maturer counsels of the one and the few. If it is meant by the people, as our author explains himself, a representative assembly, "such as shall be successively chosen to represent the people," still they are not the best keepers of the people's liberties or their own, if you give them all the power, legislative, executive, and judicial. They would invade the liberties of the people, at least the majority of them would invade the liberties of the minority, sooner and oftener than an absolute monarchy, such as that of France, Spain, or Russia, or than a well-checked aristocracy, like Venice, Bern, or Holland.
.
An excellent writer has said, somewhat incautiously, that "a people will never oppress themselves, or invade their own rights." This compliment, if applied to human nature, or to mankind, or to any nation or people in being or in memory, is more than has been merited. If it should be admitted that a people will not unanimously agree to oppress themselves, it is as much as is ever, and more than is always, true. All kinds of experience show, that great numbers of individuals do oppress great numbers of other individuals; that parties often, if not always, oppress other parties, and majorities almost universally minorities. All that this observation can mean then, consistently with any color of fact, is, that the people will never unanimously agree to oppress themselves. But if one party agrees to oppress another, or the majority the minority, the people still oppress themselves, for one part of them oppress another.
.
"The people never think of usurping over other men's rights."
.
What can this mean? Does it mean that the people never unanimously think of usurping over other men's rights? This would be trifling; for there would, by the supposition, be no other men's rights to usurp. But if the people never, jointly nor severally, think of usurping the rights of others, what occasion can there be for any government at all? Are there no robberies, burglaries, murders, adulteries, thefts, nor cheats? Is not every crime a usurpation over other men's rights? Is not a great part, I will not say the greatest part, of men detected every day in some disposition or other, stronger or weaker, more or less, to usurp over other men's rights? There are some few, indeed, whose whole lives and conversations show that, in every thought, word, and action, they conscientiously respect the rights of others. There is a larger body still, who, in the general tenor of their thoughts and actions, discover similar principles and feelings, yet frequently err. If we should extend our candor so far as to own, that the majority of men are generally under the dominion of benevolence and good intentions, yet, it must be confessed, that a vast majority frequently transgress; and, what is more directly to the point, not only a majority, but almost all, confine their benevolence to their families, relations, personal friends, parish, village, city, county, province, and that very few, indeed, extend it impartially to the whole community. Now, grant but this truth, and the question is decided. If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations.
The proposition of our author, then, should be reversed, and it should have been said, that they mind so much their own, that they never think enough of others.
.....
We concur also most sincerely in our author's conclusion, in part, namely,----That since kings and all standing powers are so inclinable to act according to their own wills and interests, in making, expounding, and executing of laws, to the prejudice of the people's liberty and security, no laws whatsoever should be made but by the people's consent, as the only means to prevent arbitrariness." But we must carry the conclusion farther, namely,--that since all men are so inclinable to act according to their own wills and interests, in making, expounding, and executing laws, to the prejudice of the people's liberty and security, the sovereign authority, the legislative, executive, and judicial power, can never be safely lodged in one assembly, though chosen annually by the people; because the majority and their leaders, the principes populi, will as certainly oppress the minority, and make, expound, and execute laws for their own wealth, power, grandeur, and glory, to the prejudice of the liberty and security of the minority, as hereditary kings or standing senates.
.
The conclusion, therefore, that "the people, in a succession of their supreme single assemblies, are the best keepers of their liberties," must be wholly reprobated.
.....
It is indeed a "most excellent maxim, that the original and fountain of all just power and government is in the people;" and if ever this maxim was fully demonstrated and exemplified among men, it was in the late American Revolution, where thirteen governments were taken down from the foundation, and new ones elected wholly by the people, as an architect would pull down an old building and erect a new one. There will be no dispute, then, with Cicero, when he says, "A mind well instructed by the light of nature, will pay obedience," willingly "to none but such as command, direct, or govern for its good or benefit;" nor will our author's inferences from these passages from that oracle of human wisdom be denied:
.
"1. That by the light of nature people are taught to be their own carvers and contrivers in the framing of that government under which they mean to live.
.
"2. That none are to preside in government, or sit at the helm, but such as shall be judged fit, and chosen by the people.
.
"3. That the people are the only proper judges of the convenience or inconvenience of a government when it is erected, and of the behavior of governors after they are chosen."
.
But then it is insisted, that rational and regular means shall be used that the whole people may be their own carvers, that they may judge and choose who shall preside, and that they may determine on the convenience or inconvenience of government, and the behavior of governors. But then it is insisted, that the town of Berwick upon Tweed shall not carve, judge, choose, and determine for the whole kingdom of Great Britain, nor the county of Berkshire for the Massachusetts; much less that a lawless tyrannical rabble shall do all this for the state, or even for the county of Berkshire.
.
It may be, and is admitted, that a free government is most natural, and only suitable to the reason of mankind; but it by no means follows "that the other forms, as of a standing power in the hands of a particular person, as a king; or of a set number of great ones, as in a senate," much less that a mixture of the three simple forms "are beside the dictates of nature, and mere artificial devices of great men, squared out only to serve the ends and interests of avarice, pride, and ambition of a few, to a vassalizing of the community." If the original and fountain of all power and government is in the people, as undoubtedly it is, the people have as clear a right to erect a simple monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, or an equal mixture, or any other mixture of all three, if they judge it for their liberty, happiness, and prosperity, as they have to erect a democracy; and infinitely greater and better men than Marchamont Nedham, and the wisest nations that ever lived, have preferred such mixtures, and even with such standing powers as ingredients in their compositions. But even those nations who choose to reserve in their own hands the periodical choice of the first magistrate, senate, and assembly, at certain stated periods, have as clear a right to appoint a first magistrate for life as for years, and for perpetuity in his descendants as for life.
.
When I say for perpetuity or for life, it is always meant to imply, that the same people have at all times a right to interpose, and to depose for maladministration--to appoint anew. No appointment of a king or senate, or any standing power, can be, in the nature of things, for a longer period than quam diu se bene gesserit, the whole nation being judge. An appointment for life or perpetuity can be no more than an appointment until further order; but further order can only be given by the nation.
.
.
Can think of quite a few of our politicians that need to study this writing. As it is quite evident, or should be, that there has been much lost in transition. So much so, that even the President of the United States frequently calls us a ‘democracy’, and that we are ‘spreading democracy’. Thought it was spelled out quite clearly in the Federalist Papers, that our nation is a Constitutional Republic!
.
In the Federalist Papers, it is spelled out quite clearly, that We The People are the Legitimate and the Ultimate Authority. As well as the Natural Guardian’s of the Constitution. And, because of the fact, that we are indeed a Constitutional Republic, there are certain absolutes that cannot be changed. Regardless of how many people desire the change. Unless, of course, the whole body of the people were to decide to alter the present form of Constitutional Republican government. But, until such point and time, the Constitution is binding upon all.
.
The perfect case in point, would be that of Rights. Our Rights were clearly declared to be inviolable and unalienable. And yet politicians, judges, majorities of the people voting, have trampled upon our Rights repeatedly. How can this possibly be happening in a Constitutional Republic? The answer is simple, our public servants have and are continuing to betray us at all levels of government. And this perversion must cease.
.
Elections coming up in 2006 and 2008. Vote every last politician out of office that has advanced in any manner against our Rights. When the new representatives get in office, have them thoroughly purge all branches and agencies of government. Any agency that is not provided for in the Constitution should be disassembled. Any judge that has ruled in a Constitutionally Repugnant manner gets impeached.
.
We are, after all, talking about our own and future generations Freedom and Liberty. Or, should we just stand idly by watching, while the remainder is perverted and subverted as well?

Two sides to every coin.....

Federal Farmer, no. 4
12 Oct. 1787 Storing 2.8.50--54
.
It is said, that when the people make a constitution, and delegate powers that all powers not delegated by them to those who govern is [sic] reserved in the people: and that the people, in the present case, have reserved in themselves, and in their state governments, every right and power not expressly given by the federal constitution to those who shall administer the national government. It is said on the other hand, that the people, when they make a constitution, yield all power not expressly reserved to themselves. The truth is, in either case, it is mere matter of opinion and men usually take either side of the argument, as will best answer their purposes: But the general presumption being, that men who govern, will, in doubtful cases, construe laws and constitutions most favourably for encreasing their own powers; all wise and prudent people, in forming constitutions, have drawn the line, and carefully described the powers parted with and the powers reserved. By the state constitutions, certain rights have been reserved in the people; or rather, they have been recognized and established in such a manner, that state legislatures are bound to respect them, and to make no laws infringing upon them. The state legislatures are obliged to take notice of the bills of rights of their respective states. The bills of rights, and the state constitutions, are fundamental compacts only between those who govern, and the people of the same state.
.
In the year 1788 the people of the United States make a federal constitution, which is a fundamental compact between them and their federal rulers; these rulers, in the nature of things, cannot be bound to take notice of any other compact. It would be absurd for them, in making laws, to look over thirteen, fifteen, or twenty state constitutions, to see what rights are established as fundamental, and must not be infringed upon, in making laws in the society. It is true, they would be bound to do it if the people, in their federal compact, should refer to the state constitutions, recognize all parts not inconsistent with the federal constitution, and direct their federal rulers to take notice of them accordingly; but this is not the case, as the plan stands proposed at present; and it is absurd, to suppose so unnatural an idea is intended or implied. I think my opinion is not only founded in reason, but I think it is supported by the report of the convention itself. If there are a number of rights established by the state constitutions, and which will remain sacred, and the general government is bound to take notice of them--it must take notice of one as well as another; and if unnecessary to recognize or establish one by the federal constitution, it would be unnecessary to recognize or establish another by it. If the federal constitution is to be construed so far in connection with the state constitutions, as to leave the trial by jury in civil causes, for instance, secured; on the same principles it would have left the trial by jury in criminal causes, the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, etc. secured; they all stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans, and have been recognized by the state constitutions: But the convention found it necessary to recognize or re-establish the benefits of that writ, and the jury trial in criminal cases. As to expost facto laws, the convention has done the same in one case, and gone further in another. It is part of the compact between the people of each state and their rulers, that no expost facto laws shall be made. But the convention, by Art. I Sect. 10 have put a sanction upon this part even of the state compacts. In fact, the 9th and 10th Sections in Art. I. in the proposed constitution, are no more nor less, than a partial bill of rights; they establish certain principles as part of the compact upon which the federal legislators and officers can never infringe. It is here wisely stipulated, that the federal legislature shall never pass a bill of attainder, or expost facto law; that no tax shall be laid on articles exported, etc. The establishing of one right implies the necessity of establishing another and similar one.
.
On the whole, the position appears to me to be undeniable, that this bill of rights ought to be carried farther, and some other principles established, as a part of this fundamental compact between the people of the United States and their federal rulers.
.
It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about religion: but when we are making a constitution, it is to be hoped, for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as a part of the national compact. There are other essential rights, which we have justly understood to be the rights of freemen; as freedom from hasty and unreasonable search warrants, warrants not founded on oath, and not issued with due caution, for searching and seizing men's papers, property, and persons. The trials by jury in civil causes, it is said, varies so much in the several states, that no words could be found for the uniform establishment of it. If so, the federal legislation will not be able to establish it by any general laws. I confess I am of opinion it may be established, but not in that beneficial manner in which we may enjoy it, for the reasons beforementioned. When I speak of the jury trial of the vicinage, or the trial of the fact in the neighbourhood--I do not lay so much stress upon the circumstance of our being tried by our neighbours: in this enlightened country men may be probably impartially tried by those who do not live very near them: but the trial of facts in the neighbourhood is of great importance in other respects. Nothing can be more essential than the cross examining witnesses, and generally before the triers of the facts in question. The common people can establish facts with much more ease with oral than written evidence; when trials of facts are removed to a distance from the homes of the parties and witnesses, oral evidence becomes intolerably expensive, and the parties must depend on written evidence, which to the common people is expensive and almost useless; it must be frequently taken ex parte, and but very seldom leads to the proper discovery of truth.
.
The trial by jury is very important in another point of view. It is essential in every free country, that common people should have a part and share of influence, in the judicial as well as in the legislative department. To hold open to them the offices of senators, judges, and offices to fill which an expensive education is required, cannot answer any valuable purposes for them; they are not in a situation to be brought forward and to fill those offices; these, and most other offices of any considerable importance, will be occupied by the few. The few, the well born, etc. as Mr. Adams calls them, in judicial decisions as well as in legislation, are generally disposed, and very naturally too, to favour those of their own description.
.
************************************************************************************
A Democratic Federalist
(In answer to Federal Farmer, no. 4).
17 Oct. 1787 Storing 3.5.1--4

The arguments of the Honorable Mr. Wilson, expressed in the speech he made at the state-house on the Saturday preceding the general election (as stated in the Pennsylvania Herald,) although extremely ingenious and the best that could be adduced in support of so bad a cause, are yet extremely futile, and will not stand the test of investigation.
.
In the first place, Mr. Wilson pretends to point out a leading discrimination between the State Constitutions, and the Constitution of the United States.--In the former, he says, every power which is not reserved is given, and in the latter, every power which is not given is reserved: And this may furnish an answer, he adds, to those who object, that a bill of rights has not been introduced in the proposed Federal Constitution. If this doctrine is true, and since it is the only security that we are to have for our natural rights, it ought at least to have been clearly expressed in the plan of government. The 2d. section of the present articles of confederation says: Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independance, AND EVERY POWER, JURISDICTION AND RIGHT WHICH IS NOT BY THIS CONFEDERATION EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO THE United States in Congress assembled.--This declaration (for what purpose I know not) is entirely omitted in the proposed Constitution. And yet there is a material difference between this Constitution and the present confederation, for Congress in the latter are merely an executive body; it has no power to raise money, it has no judicial jurisdiction. In the other, on the contrary, the federal rulers are vested with each of the three essential powers of government--their laws are to be paramount to the laws of the different States, what then will there be to oppose to their encroachments? Should they ever pretend to tyrannize over the people, their standing army, will silence every popular effort, it will be theirs to explain the powers which have been granted to them; Mr. Wilson's distinction will be forgot, denied or explained away, and the liberty of the people will be no more.
.
It is said in the 2d. section of the 3d. article of the Federal Plan: "The judicial power shall extend to ALL CASES in law and equity, arising under this constitution." It is very clear that under this clause, the tribunal of the United States, may claim a right to the cognizance of all offences against the general government, and libels will not probably be excluded. Nay, those offences may be by them construed, or by law declared, misprision of treason, an offence which comes literally under their express jurisdiction.--Where is then the safety of our boasted liberty of the press? And in case of a conflict of jurisdiction between the courts of the United States, and those of the several Commonwealths, is it not easy to foresee which of the two will obtain the advantage?
.
Under the enormous power of the new confederation, which extends to the individuals as well as to the States of America, a thousand means may be devised to destroy effectually the liberty of the press--There is no knowing what corrupt and wicked judges may do in process of time, when they are not restrained by express laws. The case of John Peter Zenger of New-York, ought still to be present to our minds, to convince us how displeasing the liberty of the press is to men in high power--At any rate, I lay it down as a general rule, that wherever the powers of a government extend to the lives, the persons, and properties of the subject, all their rights ought to be clearly and expressly defined--otherwise they have but a poor security for their liberties.
.
Ummmm.....Think I'll take door number two!

Important Arizona Second Amendment Legislation Heading to Senate Floor!

Please Contact Your State Senator Today!
.
House Bill 2076, legislation requiring city, county, and state buildings to store firearms for citizens when they prohibit firearms possession, is moving to the Senate floor for a vote.
.
In 2000, the Legislature passed a law requiring public buildings store a citizen's firearm if it prohibits possession within the facility. However, a number of government entities have thumbed their noses at this statutory requirement and arrogantly refused to comply with it. HB 2076 clearly states firearms possession cannot be prohibited in public buildings unless temporary and secure firearms storage is readily accessible upon entry is provided. The storage accommodations are to allow for "immediate retrieval" upon exiting the public establishment or event.
.
It is time for government entities to comply with the same laws they expect citizens to comply with day in and day out.
.
Citizens deserve to be able to protect themselves to and from their vehicles outside of government buildings and should not have to leave firearms in their vehicles where they can be stolen.
.
Please contact your State Senator today toll-free at 1-800-352-8404 and request that he or she support HB 2076 on the Senate Floor.
.
For further contact information on your legislators, please use the "Write Your Representatives" feature found at http://www.nraila.org/.