How Abraham Lincoln Destroyed the Union The 1787/1789 CONstitution had to be ratified by the unanimous assent of the States, otherwise it would have violated the then existing law which was in this case Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation which states….. “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” Note here that the Articles could not be altered without being…… “CONFIRMED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF EVERY STATE” If the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was NOT ratified by each States legislature, then it would be a violation of the then existing law of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, making the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution De facto/unlawful and illegal. Those who claim that the ratification was that of the people constituting an act of the States, are simply playing word games, and this includes James Madison. The act of altering the Articles of Confederation had to be CONFIRMED by each States LEGISLATURE, NOT by the people. To state that it was an act of the people of each State without being an act of each States government/legislature, would simply make the act of ratifying the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution a NATIONAL act rather than a federal act. But Madison States in #39 of the 1787/1789 CONstitutional debates that…. On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.” As we can see here, Madison is talking out both sides of his mouth, (What the Native American stated as “Speaking with a forked tongue” If the act was indeed by the people of each State, without being confirmed by each States legislature then it was a NATIONAL ACT. It matters not if the people are considered separate by artificial boarders, or without boarders at all, it still constitutes a NATIONAL ACT, NOT A FEDERAL ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XIII OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. If it was a federal act, then it was an act of the States, and not that of the people as a nation, hence it was NOT a national act. IT HAD TO BE AN ACT OF EACH STATES LEGISLATURE, OR IT WAS AN ILLEGAL ACT. IF IT WAS A FEDERAL ACT= AN ACT CONFIRMED BY EACH STATES LEGISLATURE, THEN IT WAS A COMPACT/TREATY/CHARTER MADE BETWEEN STATES. In the Case of Texas v White, the SCOTUS in their ignorance, or attempt to justify the unjustifiable asserted that…. “Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence, and that, without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Now here we see two important assertions by the SCOTUS, one being the SCOTUS has just quoted the tenth amendment… “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The second being that…… without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Yet the SCOTUS, never cited where in the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution that states that secession was unlawful or illegal, nor did they cite the power granted by the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution to prevent a State from seceding from the union. Alexander Hamilton assured the states in #32 of the 1787/1789 CONstitutional debates that…. “An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, delegated to the United States. NO POWER WAS EVER DELEGATED THO THE UNITED STATES=(THE STATES IN UNION COLLECTIVELY) TO PREVENT AS STATE FROM EXITING THE UNION. TO PREVENT SUCH WOULD CLEARLY BE A CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATES INTO A SINGLE STATE. Now, Abraham Lincoln claimed to be fighting to preserve the union, however without the State governments, there can be no union of States, without State governments, there cannot be any union of States, no United States. The union was never a union of the people as in a single nation, as to claim such would be to remove the States from the equation, to remove the union of States from the equation, and make it a national government, a single State of “We the people”. The State governments must be involved in legislation, the State governments were party to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, the United States= (The States in union collectively, as in a bureaucracy) were the product of the agreement between each State government respectively/INDIVIDUALLY. It is important to understand the difference between the two system that were cobbled together to form the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. We begin with the national portion, which is the House of Representatives: This body is divided into simple districts without regard to State government affiliation, (The House members are NOT accountable to the State governments), they are accountable only to the people of their DISTRICT, as the representatives within are elected directly by the people, NOT appointed by the State Legislature. Unfortunately as a result of Lincoln’s rebellion, they are now only accountable to the political party of their allegiance, which is in turn owned by national corporations/ big business. The Senate under the original Article I section 3, of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was to be a department of each States government to preserve their SOVEREIGNTY. The Senators under Article I section 3. Were APPOINTED by each States legislature to represent their State government: THEY WERE COMPLETELY ACCOUNTABLE TO THEIR STATES LEGISLATURE AND EXECTIVE, (GOVERNOR), If they were not voting within the best interest of their State government, they could be recalled, and replaced by a representative that would vote in the best interest of their State government. In this way, the union/confederacy of States under the Articles of Confederation was retained hence the union remained a perpetual union, A UNION OF SOVEREIGN STATES. Now, unfortunately, as a result of Lincolns rebellion, the 17th amendment was added, removing this department of the States, by having the Senators elected directly by the people, rather than being appointed by each States legislature, hence the Senators no longer represent their State government, they do not even have any interaction with their State government, leaving the States governments out of the equation. THE STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE NO LONGER PARTY TO THE U.S. CONstitution, they no longer have a say in legislation or the everyday workings of the central bureaucracy, leaving ONLY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTING THE WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE, WITHOUT REGARD TO STATE AFFILLIATION. This Senate, this department is now a department representing the political party of their affiliation rather than their State government, and the political parties are owned by corporations who pay big money to each political party for representation. So what we have today is no longer a “Perpetual union” as a result of Lincoln’s rebellion and treason. We no longer have a federal system within the occupying U.S. government, what we have is a wholly national system run by a two party duopoly, owned by multi-national corporations. .James Madison stated in #62 of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional debates that the Senate was.... “recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.” Lincoln Destroyed the union, he did NOT preserve it. csagov.org/
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 05:26:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015