Founded on Principle
"They [The makers of the Constitution] conferred, as against the
government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and
the right most valued by civilized men." [Supreme Court Justice Louis D.
Brandeis, 1928] [emphasis added]
As we approach the 21st century the people, by and large simply
accept contradictions as a part of life. Make no mistake, the American
founding fathers were at no such disadvantage. They did not accept
contradictions so readily, rather they sought out false premises.
If you catch yourself espousing positions that are contradictory i.e. we
shouldn't have gone to Viet Nam, but we have to go to Bosnia (or vice- versa)
you are forming opinions without the benefit of the 3 elements of
enlightenment: Knowledge, principle, and reason.
If any one of these elements is lacking in your evaluations then you will
likely find (or others will notice) that you often contradict yourself. In
general, the consistent difference between the modern American and the founding
father is that of the three elements of enlightenment we lack or
readily abandon principle. It's not that we lack reason, or even the knowledge
we need, the problem is that we are not firmly rooted in principles.
Return to the Viet Nam/Bosnian example: If you would hold to the founding
fathers principle to stay out of the affairs of others then you
would've never been caught in your own contradiction.
PRINCIPLES MAKE THE DIFFERENCE!
That is to say, if we apply knowledge and reason without a principle (or
set of principles) to sail by, then we shall end up lost. As we research the
True American Way, it will be most important to understand the prevalent
principles during the days of the sons of liberty (by which I mean the American
colonists that struggled against British oppression). Once we understand their
principles whether we agree with them or not we
will hold the key to understanding the True American Way.
One of the foremost principles of the founding fathers was that all men are
endowed with rights given to them by God, the Creator. To understand this is
to begin to understand our lawful system of government. Before we begin to
examine this system; we must understand how the Founders recognized
a God-given right. For this they had three tools:
1. An innate sense of right and wrong.
2. The Bible.
Observations of Nature.
Perhaps the most convincing confirmation was the latter of the three. The sons
of liberty were able to discern the God-given rights of man by simple personal
observations about the Nature of Man.
The sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments or
musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of
human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased or
obscured by mortal power. [Alexander Hamilton]
For instance: When I was growing up I had a tremendous amount of trouble with "authority
figures". To my young thinking, it did not seem natural that they should
hold any more authority over my person than that which I was prepared to let
them have. In essence, it is not
natural for anyone to have authority over your person, it may
be necessary or desirable at times, but it is never natural. As
the armed forces of this country can tell you, as will any credible pet trainer
or political scientist, obedience requires conditioning
A Founder, observing that most children have difficulty with authority, would
deduce that God did not intend that men should have arbitrary power over other
men. Whether the Creator was the Biblical God as the sons of liberty believed
or just random acts of Nature as Darwin believed is immaterial. We are all
created of the same "stuff" by the same "creator"; and it
follows that if one man was made to be superior; and one was made to be
inferior; then at our very birth, the inferior breed would acquiesce to the
superior breed, because that would be our
nature. But this is obviously not the case, for as any parent
can tell you children utilize every trick in the book to obtain autonomy; and
they will readily admit that children are able to manipulate the unsuspecting
or unwary parent. The parent is actually superior by age and wisdom, yes, but
not by nature. Only through careful and persistent
conditioning will a parent be able to convince a child that it is in his best
interest to submit to the parent's authority. It is good, for the most part,
that the parent can gain some control over a child. Yes it is good, but this
is clearly a conditioned state.
Now we can see a set of principles developing:
1. Men have God-given rights.
2. These rights are self-evident in
3. That man was not intended, by Nature, to have arbitrary
authority over other men.
Let us turn to the Declaration of Independence. Here we will see that, indeed,
a war was to be fought on these very principles:
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. [emphasis
What I have stated about it being unnatural that someone have authority
over you is in agreement with the Declaration of Independence. If you will
read the underlined passages again you will be able to understand childhood
better. As a ten year old boy having trouble with the local school teacher, I
didn't understand spit about the Declaration of Independence. Yet the sons of
liberty knew that such is the nature of man.
"...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
"... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, "
Thomas Jefferson (the principal author) and the signers of the declaration
clearly felt that it is entirely natural that one person has no higher station
than any other person, in the eyes of God and His law. It is equally clear
that the sons of liberty were resolved to the fact that from the moment of your
Creation you had rights by
nature that were unalienable. That these
rights, whether or not you could enforce them, were absolutely unchanging for
As you can now begin to see, the substance of American Law is founded on
principles. Without a clear understanding of those principles, how on Earth
can you expect to understand the American Way as established by the sons of
liberty? As we move into studying the True American Way; we must keep in mind
that the sons of liberty proceeded from and built upon a consistent
set of principles.
Building upon the principle of God-given rights the sons of liberty had
something special in mind when forming their government:
You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be
repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator
of the Universe. [John Adams, 2d President of the United States] [emphasis
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
[Declaration of Independence] [emphasis added]
Now, the principle you see being established is that God-given rights are not
within the realm of human law, or the government to restrain or restrict. In
fact, the only reason that man should allow for government is in order to
better secure man's God-given rights. Now I ask you, who but a
coward or an aristocrat, would refuse to join such a Revolution?
This is the uniqueness of the American system of government. History abounds
with examples of a people rising up to depose one system of government, only to
place another system above them. Our Revolution erased our dependence on the
English Crown as well, but the sons of liberty did not replace the Crown with a
Democracy. The Founders put the government below the People, as their servant
to protect the rights of the People. This alone was "the new thing under
Thus they did set the stage and the chain of authority for our American system
of government. Which (as I think you are beginning to see) is radically
different from what we were taught in the government funded and regulated
* * *
Building further upon the principle that the purpose of legitimate
government is to protect God-given rights is the principle that all
American government is subservient to the People. To show this let us now skip
from the document that best signifies the promise given the 1776
Declaration of Independence to the document that best signifies the
promise kept; the 1787 Constitution for the United States of America.
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. [Preamble of the Constitution] [emphasis added]
One of the common misconceptions (the one the South had in the Civil War) is
that the Constitution is some sort of contract between the Federal Government
and the state governments. However, a study of the ratification process makes
it clear that the Constitution is a set of instructions from the whole
people given to all levels of government. In effect,
it is an order from the commander of government (We the People) to our soldiers
(government). Some of this general order applies to the Federal Government;
some of it applies to state governments; and some of it applies to all
government. In order to determine the nature of the Constitution, it
will be advantageous for us to study the language and ratification of the
Note: the language is not, "We the representatives of the States..."
rather it is "We the People...establish this constitution".
Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the intention was that the States were
establishing a Constitution. That is contrary to the language, and where such
contradiction exists it is the responsibility of those who would challenge the
language to prove otherwise. Even so, I will shed further light on the matter,
but my point here and hereafter is this - the people created the
constitution - it belongs to us - not to any government, federal or state.
By the Almighty, it is
our Constitution for the United States of
One might be inclined to think that the Constitution was sent to the separate
state legislatures for ratification. This assumption is incorrect, in fact,
the Constitution was ratified by conventions elected for the sole purpose of
determining whether or not to adopt the Constitution. Most everyone in
government at that time understood that to send such a document to the state
legislatures would be a big mistake. The Federalists realized that if the
authority of the Constitution was derived from the whole People then the States
could not opt out of the Union without the support of the People as a whole.
Thus the Union was made perpetual, as evidenced in the Civil War.
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.
The ratification of the CONVENTIONS of nine States,
shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the
States so ratifying the same.
The Preamble and Article VII clearly show that it is the whole
people from whence government authority originates. Furthermore, when
the People formed their government they gave it only those authorities
contained in the Constitution. This is what is meant by "limited
government"; viz, a government with limits. Government is limited to
those authorities expressed in the Constitution only, and then is futher
restricted by expressed prohibitions. The principle of a subservient
government is readily apparent in both the Declaration of Independence (the
promise given) and the Constitution (the promise realized).
"Let us hear no more of confidence in man, but let us keep THEM
[men in government] from mischief by binding them down by the chains of the
Constitution." [Thomas Jefferson] [emphasis added]
It will be a benefit to reflect further upon the importance of the Preamble, so
that we will futher solidify the issue. Now I have seen a lot of attorney "mumbo-jumbo"
about the Preamble not having the force of law. This is blatantly incorrect,
for whenever a precept of law has been included with the law, the effect of the
subordinate writing must be within "the Spirit of the Law" to be of
any just use.
The importance of examining the preamble, for the purpose of
expounding the language of a statute, has been long felt, and universally
conceded in all judicial discussions. It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary
course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a
key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be
remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of
the statute. We find it laid down in some of our earliest authorities in the
common law; and civilians are accustomed to a similar expression, cessante
ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex. Probably it has a foundation in the
exposition of every code of written law, from the universal principle of
interpretation, that the will and intention of the legislature is to be
regarded and followed. It is properly resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities
arise upon the words of the enacting part; for if they are clear and
unambiguous, there seems little room for interpretation, except in cases
leading to an obvious absurdity, or to a direct overthrow of the intention
expressed in the Preamble. [Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story] [Commentaries
on the Constitution of the United States]
Common sense will tell us that if the text of the law is in disagreement with
the spirit of the law, something is intrinsically wrong. I have set forth that
the Founders had no love of contradictions, and there is none here: The spirit
of the law is the intent. To use the letter of the law to misinterpet the
intent of the law is usurpation. It takes an incredible stretch of sophistry
to find the Preamble of no effect.
Throughout the Consitution we find the subservient principle stated and
The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of Citizens in the several states. [Article 4, Sect 2]
trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury [Twelve of
the People]; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial
shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
[Article 3, Sect 2] [emphasis added]
The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people. [Ninth Amendment]
"The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it [the
Constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people." [Tenth Amendment] [emphasis added]
Now let us study the terminology of the 10th Amendment...
First, powers that are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
are non-existent to the Federal Government, and
Second, powers that the Constitution does not prohibit the States from having,
are reserved to the individual States, or to the people.
Again the Federal Government only has those powers that are contained within
the Constitution; and powers that are not withheld from the States by the
Constitution are powers that are reserved to the States or the People.
This may not be enlightening until you finally come to the realization that
both the Federal Government and the State governments are hereby limited in
power, but the people have no expressed limitations!
Is there an implied limitation that the people do not have those powers that
are granted to the governments? The Tenth Amendment clearly states that powers
to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The question then is:
If you will but reflect on a real life example: Suppose I say to my two sons, "My
sons, I am hungry. If you are agreeable, the eldest will drive the car into
town, and the youngest will decide what groceries to purchase, and I will
provide the means to accomplish both." If they agree they ratify the deal,
but the power to act in my own behalf is not lost, that is to say, I can still
go to town and get groceries myself.
The Constitution's Preamble, Article VII, the Bill of Rights, and the
Declaration of Independence are in agreement: Government power is delegated to
it from the consent of the governed; that all government power begins with the
People and is delegated from the same. Here again we see the principle of
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Delegation is an interesting concept and it has three natural properties
that are readily apparent;
a) one cannot delegate a power which one does not have;
b) one who is
delegated a power does not have an implied authority to further delegate that
c) a power delegated is not a power abdicated.
Let us, in the interest of exploration, examine a bank owner who hires a
manager and a clerk. The clerk has been told that he cannot go into the vault,
at this point, it's a sure bet that the clerk cannot delegate to the manager
the power to enter the vault [case a]. However, the owner can authorize the
manager to go into the vault, and still go in himself [case c]. It would be
negligent of the manager to delegate the power to enter the vault to the clerk,
without the owner expressing to the manager, that he may do so
Now let's bring together the points we have so far explored.
The basis for our government is man's natural right (given to him by his
Creator) not to be governed without his consent. From there we
have been able to rightly determine that the people are the creators of
government endowing it with certain powers (via the Constitution), and lastly
that there are natural rules for the power of delegation.
The correct structure of our lawful government now begins to become clear.
There is plenty of mist yet, but the warmth of the sun is undeniable.
* * *
At this point you may be thinking, 'Hold on a minute. People would run
amuck and shoot and kill each other, and all sorts of despicable things if the
government didn't control us. This is absolute anarchy. Without the fear of
the government coming down on us we'd be in a serious mess.'
Let me address that concern and misconception. First, I defer to the wisdom of
If we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have
happened in England, we shall find that they did not proceed from the want of
a government, but that government was itself the generating cause; instead of
consolidating society it divided it; it deprived it of its natural cohesion,
and engendered discontents and disorders which otherwise would not have
Now, again, to the question of anarchy. At no time in the history of modern
civilization has there ever been a nation where anarchy ruled. The reason is
simple: In the absence of government, someone will appoint himself the
governor. So when I say that the People are above the government in the
authority structure, I am not saying that the People are left in anarchy. What
I am saying is that the term self- government does not mean an elected
government as we are taught to believe. Neither does self-government
mean anarchy. Self- government does not mean that the People shall allow crime
to go unpunished; rather, it simply means that the People shall govern
themselves. Later in this work we will explore how such self-government works.
For now, it need only be understood that self-government does not mean
Furthermore, at no time in history can we find that crime was not an everyday
event, and at this particular point in time, crime seems to be rampant here in
our own country as well as abroad. To our benefit we are neither alone, nor
the first nation to have crime (self-governing or not). We are rather famous
for another first, however,
WE ARE THE FIRST AND ONLY NATION IN HISTORY THAT EVER PLACED THE PEOPLE AS SOVEREIGN OVER THE GOVERNMENT.
Sovereignty, the principle of he who makes the rules.
This issue of jurisdiction as it relates to Sovereignty is a major
key to understanding our system under our Constitution. [The Omnibus, Addendum
II, page 11]
Under our form of government, the legislature is not supreme. It
is only one of the organs of the absolute sovereignty which resides in the
whole body of the People; like other bodies of government, it can only
exercise such powers as have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond
that boundary, its acts...are utterly VOID. [Billings v. Hall, 7 CA. 1]
In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act
through the organs established by the Constitution. [cites omitted] The
Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers
to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the
Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of
the people to override their will as thus declared. [Perry vs United
States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)] [emphasis added]
There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the
government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in
the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the sovereign
People] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.
[Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421] [emphasis added]
Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world [Europe],
where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by
compact. In America, however, the case is widely different.
Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the
people. [Glass vs The Sloop Betsy, 3 Dall 6 (1794)] [emphasis added]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the
author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are
delegated to the agencies of government,
sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all
government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of
power. [Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)] [emphasis added]
It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and
the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is answerable for his acts only
to his God and to his own conscience. [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th
Edition, 1870] [in definition of "United States of America"] [emphasis
So what exactly does sovereign mean?
Sovereign: Having supreme rank, power and authority... Supreme and
independent power... indisputable... being above all others... having dominion,
power, authority... rightful status of independence and prerogative... greatest
in degree. [Webster's Dictionary]
Many of us will suspect the truth as to our position as sovereigns in the U.S.
After all, most of the older generation received hint after hint about our
rightful authority, such as: We're a Free Nation; We have Rights; We are a
nation of Law, not of men; In God We Trust; etc. It is a relatively easy task
to prove that we are indeed sovereigns and that arguments to the contrary
cannot withstand against the truth revealed.
You may suspect what I am telling you, and your suspicion is well founded. Our
lives, it seems, are regulated to the umpteenth degree. It has been said that
not a day goes by where each and every person is not breaking some law or
another. In our modern system such as this, indeed, your doubts are
well-founded. With clarity of purpose anyone can brush aside those doubts with
the power of truth and logic. Examination of the 'roots' of facts, rather than
the results of legislation will reveal all law that is false almost instantly.
It is not easy to grasp for the first time these concepts, but once understood,
Sovereignty is assured.
Before we journey into the why's and how's let us consider some arguments that
are easily found to be true. These arguments will sustain your faith in my
research, and compel you to judiciously reflect on my conclusions.
The first elements that I would bring to your attention is the Grand Jury and
the Trial Jury (known as the petit jury). Both juries are made up of twelve
citizens, that cannot be officials or employees of the government in any way.
The Grand Jury of citizens considers the evidence that the government has
acquired against a citizen. If there is sufficient evidence of guilt to
warrant a trial, the Grand Jury issues an indictment against the citizen. At
trial, a different group of citizens, the trial jury (petit jury), will judge
beyond a reasonable doubt if the citizen is guilty or not. You can see the
jury is very powerful, but it will serve us well to illustrate just how
If one were to consider the combined power of all three branches of government,
you would be amazed at their inherent disadvantage. For argument's sake let us
entertain the concept of gathering the President and all the employee's of the
executive branch, the Congress and all its legislative staff, and the Supreme
Court and all the judges on the Federal Bench and all the U.S. Attorneys under
one roof; the sum would equal several million people. We would have (under the
theory that the People are not sovereign) the total power and the authority of
the government concentrated, but all these people together cannot serve you
with an indictment; cannot put you to trial; or convict you; without your
consent or the consent of a jury.
The government does not make up the jury. We the People, make up the jury. It
is for us to decide who shall be punished and who shall be acquitted. Thus you
now can see that the principle of sovereignty carries directly into our court
system; viz, he who makes the rules retains the right to decide who
shall be punished. The government does not have that power, unless there is
some sort of consent from the accused.
Again, who is on top, the CITIZEN or the GOVERNMENT?
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the
undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the
law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the courts
must abide by that decision." [US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006] [emphasis added]
When observing our current legal system we find that in a vast majority of
cases, the citizen establishes his own guilt by "plea bargaining."
Often we see that the citizen waives his right to trial by jury. In both these
cases it can be seen that the "state" cannot, by itself, find a
citizen guilty; only by the consent of the citizen or the jury
can a citizen be found guilty of a crime. Everywhere we turn, if we look
closely, we see the remnants of that all but forgotten principle
that the government is subservient to the People.
In closing this initial examination of the principles of our Founders, and of
the government they formed, it is important to reaffirm those principles before
- Men have God-given rights.
- These rights are self-evident in Nature.
- Man was not intended to have arbitrary authority over other men.
- It is beyond mortal capacity to change these rights, even though others
may wrongfully obstruct you from their exercise.
- The authority of the government flows from the People by way of a set of
- The American government is subservient to the People who are sovereign.
- The Sovereign is "he who makes the rules."
We can now see the True American Way rising above the mists. The American
Citizen is the complete master of American government.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment
should it be left to irresponsible action." [George Washington]