Skip to content

The Egregious Disregard for the Document on which the United States was Founded

June 4, 2013

Alexander Hamilton worte in Federalist No. 78 that “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form (of the Constitution), it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.” Oh my! Alexander Hamilton would be turning in his grave today.

This brings me to the point of “judicial activism”. Judicial activism is supposedly a democratic way that the courts interpret the ever evolving meaning of the Constitution in order to safeguard it from those who are to take it too literally. It is a “living, breathing” document that changes with the times. The idea seems superficially plausible. After all the document was developed in the late eighteenth century, a time where they could not have anticipated the challenges of the twenty-first century.

This concept would make a feudal society blush. In the Middle Ages, the king did possess certain customary rights, but even he could not define his own powers at will or overturn the traditional rights of the people or of the subsidiary bodies that comprised his realm.

Another concepts that condones the egregious disregard for the document on which the United States was founded is the term legal positivism, which says that a human law possesses its force not from its conformity to natural law but simply because it has been approved by the pertinent authority. A legal positivist rejects the idea that there can be any appeal to some higher authority or standard, namely, I say namely because I hate the use of the phrase “e.g.”. Namely, long standing tradition, when objecting to a duly promulgated legislative act. The law does not have to justify itself with reference to anything beyond the will of the legislator.

In effect, “because I said so” is sufficient, just as it is when a mother sends her son to bed at seven-thirty on the grounds that she is the authority figure and he is the child.  I would like to make crystal clear to Congress and law enforcement agencies across the nation a point made by the colonial lawyer James Otis in 1763, in which he developed the idea that there was in fact something external to Parliament that limited its power and it went something like this:

To say the parliament is absolute and arbitrary, is a contradiction. The parliament cannot make 2 and 2, 5; Omnipotency cannot do it. The supreme power in a state, is jus dicere [to state the law] only–jus dare [to give the law], strictly speaking, belongs alone to God. Parliaments are in all cases to declare what is for the good of the whole; but it is not the declaration of parliament that makes it so: There must be in every instance, a higher authority, viz. GOD. Should an act of parliament be against any of his natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity and justice, and consequently void.

If we utilize the argument of Otis today in Massachusetts where the United States government decided to invade people’s homes a couple of months ago and where ironically James Otis in 1761 argued in Massachusetts on behalf of colonial merchants who objected to the issuance of general writs giving British officials sweeping rights to search businesses and even private homes in search of contraband. Otis argued that such writs were unconstitutional and therefore void, since this kind of offense against the right to privacy and against the people’s right to be secure in their homes had not been one of the British government’s traditional powers, just like what police did in search of the so-called Boston marathon bomber is not one of the United States governments’ traditional power. Of course had citizens in Boston told the police no individually, they would have been meet with AR-15 firepower, oh but its okay for the government to wield AR-15s.

I urge all North Americans to learn their history and stop being manipulated by the media and by so-called law enforcement. We have been through this before with the French and Indian Wars (1754-63) where the British had accumulated a significant debt, and sought to pay it off with the help of revenue to be raised in the colonies. The politicians in Washington, DC are the new British treating us citizens as colonists to be plundered. Learn your history! Read!

Parliamentary supremacy had become the accepted norm in Britain during the 1700s. Just like presidential and congressional supremacy has become the accepted norm in the United States. We have forgotten why we broke away from Britain, we have now become that evil which we broke away from. News flash, the IRS is illegal!

Study the American Revenue Act (or Sugar Act) of 1764, study about the Stamp Act of 1765. The act taxed a wide variety of paper products like deeds, wills, newspapers, and books, as well as other items like dice and playing cards. The colonial response was swift and effective. Boycotts of British goods were quickly organized. The Sons of Liberty intimidated stamp agents. Official remonstrances, in the form of Patrick Henry’s Virginia Resolves and the protests of the Stamp Act Congress, proclaimed and justified the colonial intention to resist. We need to be doing the same today when we hear this nonsense of an internet sales tax and so on.

One last point that seems to have escaped the majority of sheeple in the United States. The colonists argued that their right to not be taxed without their consent was an ancient one that could not be denied without doing violence to the British constitution. John Adams spoke of the “grand and fundamental principle of the constitution, that no freeman should be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent, in person or by proxy.” For the sheeple who criticized me for not citing in another article, you can read what I just quoted in page 115 of the American Republic under “Braintree Instructions. That quote is so applicable today that it bears rewriting:

“grand and fundamental principle of the constitution, that no freeman should be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent, in person or by proxy.” — John Adams, American Republic, p. 115.



From → Economics

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: