The True American Way

"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.

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.
3. 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 Nature.
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 added]

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.

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 all eternity.

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 added]

"...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 the sun".

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 schools.

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 document.

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 America.

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.

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 restated:

The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of Citizens in the several states. [Article 4, Sect 2]

The 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 are delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The question then is: By whom?

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 government subservience.

"...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 power; and
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 [case b].

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 Thomas Paine.

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 existed.

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 anarchy.

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,

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] [emphasis added]

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 added]

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 powerful.

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.

"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 moving on.

• 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 instructions.
• 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]

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship