by Timothy Baldwin
Posted on 29 December 2009
One of the latest carts in the long train of abuses of our federal government is the amnesty legislation introduced by Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), entitled, Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity. Of course, former President G.W. Bush (R) and Senator John McCain (R) advocated for similar amnesty legislation that would have had similar effects, jeopardizing the lives of millions of Americans across the States of America (among other things). It is not my intent to discuss the seriously negative and detrimental impacts amnesty brings upon this country. If you do not know them already, then this article will likely make absolutely no sense to you anyway (I suggest that you study the principles of freedom and republicanism). Rather, I want to offer the following principle of truth behind the response and solution to proposed amnesty laws by the federal government.
The federal government would not even dare make the following statement concerning the maintenance of freedom in a constitutional republic, but here is the truth regardless. Natural law principles of self-government in a constitutional federal republic require that those composing the sovereign bodies-politic (i.e. States) must have common notions of justice, laws and morality; without this commonality, tyranny and despotism ultimately succeed. History proves this, as do natural law observations. Moreover, this maxim was a fundamental element to creating a form of government conducive to protecting freedom, as envisioned in the US Constitution of 1787 and the Articles of Confederation of 1781.
First, observe the Anti-Federalist position of maintaining a free republic:
“In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving, against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good.” Brutus and Ralph Ketcham, ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, (New York: Signet Classic, 2003), 277.
Now consider the Federalist position, as founding father John Jay observes that the only reason the union of the United States could possibly survive and potentially thrive was based upon the States’ commonality:
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” John Jay, Federalist Paper 2.
On both sides of the 1787 constitution-ratification issue, the consensus was this: the only way a constitutional republic can maintain itself is through commonality: cultural, moral, religious and ideological diversity destroys self-government and requires a very strong centralized government to force all components of society to “get along”.
Today, the federal government, along with their submissive agents in modern-American culture, media and academia, actually expect the people of the states to accept and advance the notion that America is great because it is diverse. Indeed, G.W. Bush admits that the United States no longer shares any common interest. To the contrary, Bush observes that “[s]ometimes [America’s] differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country.” Text of Bush’s Inaugural Speech, Associated Press, January 20, 2001. Is this supposed to be a good thing?! To our founding generation, it undoubtedly would have prevented their ratifying the constitution of 1787, which lay on the presumption that the people throughout the states had commonality in heart, mind, soul and body–a requirement to maintain a federal constitutional republic.
So, how can the federal government comply with the US Constitutional requirement that a republic form of government be maintained (See, Article IV, Section 4) where it is advocating principles, policies and practices contrary to our constitutional republic? (Of course, this question of maintaining a free republic applies to so many other atrocities perpetrated by the federal government.) There are only two possibilities: (1) they know what they doing by their implementation of these forceful impositions, and thus, are evil in their very intent and deeds, or (2) they are ignorant of what it takes to maintain a free constitutional republic, and thus, do not even deserve to hold office on any level. I personally believe that there are more who qualify under the former, rather than the latter. Regardless, the effect is the same: rise in despotism; fall of freedom.
The cause of the United States becoming as diluted as a small box of cheap fruit juice made by an off-brand company, sold at a discount grocery store going out of business on a clearance rack, is no wonder. Given the federal government’s intent and successful accomplishments of destroying the principles forming our constitutional republic, the states must evaluate the reasons and principles which caused their assent to the union of 1787 in the first place. The states must use their active sovereignty, as James Madison phrased in the Federalist Papers, to protect freedom within its own borders. Regardless of the method chosen by each state, the people of the states should effectuate a meaningful and imminent change of power in the structure and form of government–from those who have taken to those in whom it belongs.
Freedom will be restored in the states when the people of the states realize that the union of 1787 was never designed to provide freedom internally to the states. Self-government will become relevant again when the people of the states awaken to the federal usurpations and encroachments which have occurred for more than a century. Perhaps most importantly, your state will cease to be the slave of the federal despot when you truly understand what it means for your state to be a sovereign state.
Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin 2009
Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment