The Division of Power

The following is a newslettter from the American Patriot Party National Campaign Headquarters shared here for it's very informative information and links.

 

 

 

American Patriot Party National News Letter

The Division of Power


To all State Chair Persons and Party Members:

Welcome to the American Patriot Party.

This is the first issue of the American Patriot Party National News Letter.

In this premiere issue we call attention to two updated pages on the national web site.

1.) Freedom, Public Opinion, Consent and Condemnation.
2.) Socialism as defined by the American Patriot Party

Below are listed three links from constitution.org

You may want to "save page as" "Web page complete" to your desk top when you find notable pages, as some times it is extremely hard to reacquire a page after leaving the site as there are so many documents.

The subject presented in this news letter is entitled "The Division of Power" I thought it fitting for two reasons, one, I thought it would help define the Party's stand on that division, and two, because the stirring discussion I had a week ago with the Ohio party which had prompted me for a little discussion  and actual documentation on the subject of state powers and national powers  and the division line between the two.

Below I have copied a page that presents one of the better debates that really exemplifies some core problems of power, and voiced very clearly by Patrick Henry and others. It would good for you to read the Rights of the Colonists 1772 first to understand the issues debated here, to see the solid foundation of Patrick Henry's concerns as he had well experienced the abuse of national powers only 12 years prior to this debate. He ends some of his with questions meant to establish the obvious facts of recent history; and though serious in nature are somewhat humorous in delivery.  The fluidity of all the speakers sets one in awe. There is finite reasonings presented for which are explored where the powers should lay.

The issues range from Militias, Standing Armies and a very good debate on the Bill of Rights which Patrick Henry defends quite artistically with words; against those who would have omitted them. It is why we caution state chairs on which person's they quote, as some founders of "federalism" were in fact not presenting those long established foundations of freedom, but of the same vague easily corrupted establishments found in tyrannical governments and subversive powers with no safeguards.

Some of the founder's statements that are made that need to be in context, as there is even one area that Patrick Henry points out that the document states that the congress should control the militia, but he is describing the "flaw" in the document; This, as he is a tough critic on the new Constitution for good cause, and an ardent proponent of the Bill of Rights; In reading, both at start and finish, he is opposed to giving Congress sweeping powers of force, thereby you must read not only the discussions in context to the many varied subjects (including understanding the many varied levels of perceived definitions of militia which had changed prior to this discussion; and they discuss may change in the future), but relate them over all; and further read back to the history of which they relate to, the Declaration of Independence, established common law as in the Rights of the Colonists, the Magna Carta and early state constitutions; As these were well known by them, and were in this knowledge taken for granted as they spoke, expecting those around them to be in understanding of them. The artistry of their speech (pointed out by George Mason in relation to the federalist evasions as "artful sophistry and evasions could not satisfy him"  and some of Patrick Henry's facetious speech "parts" make it hard to tell at times when he is taunting the opposing position with their stands and optimism of the proposed national government and the "integrity" of the persons that will weld power within it. This sometimes causes even those in the debate to clarify.

You will find many of those debating the issue are actually agreeing, but are found defining separate issues which they eventually clear up to some extent.... (this is just one of many debates) make sure to read clear through this one, as some times they are being facetious to make their point.

Note that the federalists "dance around" the idea (as well as attempt to disarm his concerns) that Patrick Henry and George Mason touch upon; And that is, that should laws change, which they have, and new persons in the government be disingenuous, what is to protect the states and or the people when the federal government has corrupted the national government and welds the greater power in which the state militias are obligated now to serve.

The safeguards they mention here, besides the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, is the state's ability to adequately control, arm and defend themselves withadequate powers to repel.

This includes importing arms and arming themselves and their state militias outside the federal government.

These safeguards, in part, have been taken down or relinquished by corruptions they mention here;

What it does define clearly, is that the states can arm and manage their own militias for just that protection; This protection  can extend out to protect other states; So there are these protections, if  the states would use them, or even understand the intent for which they exist. Which is the reason that every free citizen and our state governments need to be educated in these rights.

The difficulty, as presented above and by Patrick Henry, is when the "National" (federal) government is disingenuous, what will be the procedure of the states toward the national; The question comes up, but is not directly  answered but for the right of the states to control the militia when there  is no war against foreign invaders that requires attention by the national;

Or when the state is attacked, or in eminent danger, the "state" "can"engage in warwithout approval from congress.

Insuring the right of the state to defend itself absolutely against any invader of their state constitutions and freedoms.

Early law and these conventions, establishes that a free state can limit the forces that it will offer to a national cause by establishing what the state believes it needs to adequately protect its own state. This would be one safeguard to insuring a free state; or states, which they have a right to defend each others freedoms in the face of the rise of tyranny in the national government. Again is the procedure or steps; and what clear issues must arise to enact that procedure and how would a state withdraw it's militia from a "standing army" controlled by the national of which it is attempting to defend against. The issues are clearly written in the Declaration of Independence within the grievances. The procedures and steps are what is needed to complete and establish this safeguard.

Note that the definition of "MILITIA" by James Madison is a force of citizens >>>in opposition of the standing army"officered by men chosen among themselves", not by government or military; All other definitions of militia are baseless:

James Madison: "The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does NOT EXCEEDone hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth (1/25th) part of the number able to bear arms. This PORTION would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To "these" would be "OPPOSED"  (APP: indicating that the "militia" is to be a "OPPOSING force" to the standing army as well as that of foreign enemies)

a MILITIA amounting to near half a million "CITIZENS" with arms in theirHANDS,"officered by men chosen from "AMONG THEMSELVES", (NOT by government or the standing army - a solid restriction to the true definition of the term "MILITIA") fighting for "their"(the citizen / militia's) common liberties and united and conducted by government"S" (local) possessing their(the citizen / militia's) affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a "proportion" of regular troops(i.e. standing army). Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the "enterprises of ambition", more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."

George Mason establishes in this convention, that the MILITIA is ALL PEOPLE, and emphasizes the importance of the arming of the CITIZENSnot be neglected.


Other limitations found in this convention which define the meaning of the Constitution are:

* The federal government CANNOT exceed the 10 miles square granted it NOR BE MORE than 1 MILE;
* The federal government CANNOT govern police outside the 10 miles square;
* The federal government CANNOT make ANY regulation that even "MAY" affect the citizens of the "Union at Large";(i.e. income tax, environmental laws etc.)
* The federal government CANNOT exceed the delegated powers, not even by ONE STEP;
* The federal government CANNOTarrogateANY new power; (an "unenumerated" income tax is a arrogation of power outside the limited delegated power of "enumerated" taxation only)
* The federal government can prosecute a.)  piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and  b.) offences against the laws of nations;
* The federal government CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER",  WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION".
* The supremacy is limited to the 10 miles square, i.e."THAT PLACE SOLELY" i.e. supreme law of "the land" =  the 10 miles square.
* The STATES can VOID (NULLIFY) anything of the federal government for which they sense danger, and "REFUSE IT ALTOGETHER".
( See also Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions)
* The federal government must acquire permission from any state to have forts.

See also Constitution's limited delegated powers and  Kentucky Resolutions #2 indicating again clearly the federal government CANNOT even CREATEANY new laws so to prosecute ANY new crimes but are LIMITED to the "4" they had been granted in the Constitution's Compact, to prosecute;

The RATIFYING and AMENDMENT process was for making changes in the DELEGATED powers, it was NEVER meant to be used as a means to arrogate new powers upon the federal government which the federal government wasEXPRESSLY PROHIBITED; by "ANY MEANS".


If you are of my view of this debate, you will find it both stirring and thoroughly enjoying.

What I note the greatest achievement by Patrick Henry, is the way he draws out the "intentions" and clarifications of the federalists and anti federalists  alike, which in fact establish our laws as defined in their intent;

As a judge looks back at the intentions set forth in the legislature which creates law to establish how he upholds the law in court; So is theintent of the Founders, who have created and established the Constitution, the law of the Constitution and prior rights even the Constitution is subject to, are to be upheld in everycourt.

All those prior known rights not expressly delegated, and those rights which either are established by engagements, oaths and known law, are reserved to the states and to the people. They are in full effect today as they were before the Constitution was ratified, as clearly presented.

In these the federal government has no power over, but only to defend, at request of the independent state.

It is clear in these debates, that the intent of the founders is that the federal government is only there as an additional protection at the beck and call and control of the states; and not one of creator of "new powers", a subjugator, or of internal improvements, and manipulations of state laws; or of anything that has not been expressly delegated to it.

Sincerely,

Richard Taylor
Chair
American Patriot Party (.cc)
American Patriot Party of Oregon


The third link, which presents some intense exchanges, I have presented below  in full, as Patrick Henry and others presents many concerns that have today  have arisen.

The first link is a index of other indexes of many papers, letters and founders debates.

The second link are those relating to Patrick Henry.

http://www.constitution.org/afp.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/phenry00.htm
On the Bill of Rights (very good) http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm#henry-12