The four essential components of a genuine constitutional republic are, 1) ensured liberty to pursue happiness, 2) risk of failure according to natural law, 3) a free-market economy unfettered by unconstitutional government regulation, and 4) just constitutional federal laws legislated to ensure a preservation of freedom and liberty. These elements are the bulwarks of freedom that a written constitution and a Bill of Rights are intended to guarantee to the People of that republic. The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution are those ten inspired amendments intended by the Framers to guarantee, unto perpetuity, the inalienable rights necessary for the States, or the People and their posterity to have freedom and liberty to pursue personal happiness. This is simply because individual happiness in a free society is not, to any degree, guaranteed. False guarantees of financial and social security are only found in socialist and Marxist regimes which tyrannically regulate and control all human endeavors to a sad end. Without freedom of conscience, movement, and human endeavor, and laws to maintain those freedoms, there can be no real pursuit of happiness. Human happiness must be personally desired, and actively and uniquely pursued, by the individual citizen of the republic through freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of privacy. The guaranteed inalienable freedom of privacy, directly beneath the freedoms of religion and speech in importance, is certainly vital and affords the individual citizen security from government encrouchment on what the citizen writes, emails (and the electronic attachments contained in those emails), and the citizen’s electronic records, which are tantamount to the paper records and effects that the citizen prepares, mails (by regular mail), or has concealed in a safe in a house. The 4th Amendment was intended to secure these rights, which are to be free of government search, seizure (and electronic surveillance), unless a valid warrant is obtained from a magistrate, which is based upon evidence produced by law enforcement that clearly shows that probable cause exists for the search (or electronic surveillance) warrant because of the substantial probability that a citizen of the republic has committed a crime, or has planned to commit a crime.
The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, probably the most important of the first ten amendments, was deemed essential by the Framers in order to preserve the previous nine amendments from denigration and usurpation by the federal government. It was intended by the Framers to specifically set forth the very many general powers given to the States, or to the People, and those few specific powers given specifically to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, in order to ensure that the federal government never tyrannically oversteps its specific grant of power. The 10th Amendment specifically states that the federal government is bound by the grants of federal power contained in the U.S. Constitution specifically delegated to the U.S. government. All powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People. Hence, the greater powers are reserved unto the States, since the States formed the federal government. Contrary to what some federal politicians and bureaucrats think, the federal government did not create the States, nor do they have any more power over the States than that delegated by the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution was, therefore, intended by the Framers as the essential, and only, rulebook for operation of the federal government, and the individual State constitutions were the separate and distinct rulebooks for operation of the individual State governments. Just like the rulebook for any rule-oriented game, such as chess, baseball, football, or, even, for cooking, following the specific rules is vital to the integrity of the game or, even, how a particular recipe turns-out. Such is only common sense, and fundamental to an understanding of natural law. The ultimate outcome of following the specific rules of the U.S. Constitution was, according to the Framers’ intent (as stated in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution), to “… ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” This insurance policy for the perpetuation of personal liberty was predicated upon the federal government, 1) ensuring domestic tranquility (making sure that each State respects the rights of the other States), providing for the common defense (ensuring that there is a federal army, navy, and air force prepared to repel a foreign invasion), and promoting the general welfare (encouraging the States to make sure that the rights of their People are protected). These specific federal legislative powers were enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the very few federal Executive powers were enumerated in Article 2, and the power of the federal judiciary is enumerated in Article 3.
When I was a boy living in East Texas between the years 1956 and 1971, my concept of personal liberty was personified in a very practical and understandable life-style predicated upon a Southern generational hunger for freedom from tyrannical government. In 1955, my father bought a 1.5 acre piece of land west of Tyler, Texas, developed it, built a welding shop on it, dug a water-well, and later, moved a house onto the property. For seven years my family and I lived in a trailer house on the land. For two years my father generated our own electricity from a fuel-operated generator. Over a period of time, my father, a man with only a 6th grade country education, became the most influential independent welder in the Smith County, Texas area. He was a self-educated man who, born in 1906 the son of an illiterate sharecropper,, acquired over a forty-year period of time the knowledge, learning, and experience that placed him in a category well-beyond the knowledge and abilities of a person with a four-year college degree. He didn’t like anyone, or any government, telling him what he could, or what he could not, do. My father was very much like the original American citizens who migrated to Texas in the early 1800s, when it was under Mexican rule. What those U.S. citizens were desperately seeking, more than anything else, was the freedom and liberty to carve-out their own destinies in order to pursue their own individual forms of happiness in the newly-formed Republic of Texas. That is why they boldly fought the tyranny imposed by the dictator Santa Ana.
It was the esteemed 19th Century Harvard educated essayist Henry David Thoreau who, in 1848, wrote that “if you see a person not conforming to society’s, or government’s, expectations and what it thinks that he, or she, should do, that person is probably marching to the beat of a different drummer. Thoreau and transcendentalist Christian minister Ralph Waldo Emerson believed that this nonconformity was good for a constitutional republic, and that individuals were exercising their God-given freedom and liberty by doing so. So, why would a republican form of government want to make the people it rules be in total conformity with all of its social, economic, military, and political expectations, and for an individual citizen to never march to the beat of a different drummer? In the 21st Century, this question begs for an answer. My father marched to the beat of a different drummer and found his happiness through the freedom he had to pursue his goals through a great deal of hard work and moral effort; my mother did also. My paternal and maternal grandparents, born in the 19th Century shortly after the American Civil War, left a legacy of freedom and liberty for my parents to follow. And that is what the cry, heard today, is all about, freedom and liberty from oppressive government.
If the American people were as free today, as the average American was in 1870, to work, to invest time, money, and human energy, to be free from the bondage of income taxation, and to pursue individual happiness without restriction, the American citizens of the republic would be better educated, more self-reliant, more dedicated to the natural laws of morality. The fifty American States would have a much a stronger union, the republic would be sovereign and independent from foreign entanglements and alliances. Moreover, the republic would be free from the economic tyranny imposed by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade organization; and the American Dollar would be a sovereign dollar worth 100 percent of its value based upon its value in gold and silver, not a second-rate inflated reserve currency for the global market.
Unfortunately today, in the 21st Century, a great many members of the U.S. electorate (those men and women 18 years and older) look back at the U.S. population in 1870 and see a slower and less productive society, and presume that the literacy rate, knowledge, and productivity of the average American at that time was despairingly low compared with the technological 20th and 21st Centuries. This is because these misinformed people falsely presume that, with increased technology and the advent of the computer era, most people have to be better educated. Actually the literacy rate in 1870, among a population of 38.5 million, was greater proportionately than in 1970, among a population of 203.3 million. People could read, write, and do basic math pretty well, and more people learned to read so that they could read to learn. Thomas Edison, Philo Farnsworth, and Henry Ford were good examples of this principle that has grown stale in the later half of the 20th Century.
Why was this so? Well, one must understand who actually educated most children before the States began building public school systems. Believe it or not, families educated their own children. Mothers and fathers taught their children to read, write, and perform basic arithmetic usually before they were six years of age. That’s why approximately 89 percent of the population, in 1870, could read on an elementary-school level, do simple arithmetic, and sign their names, which then far exceeded what public schools accomplish today in twelve years of free public education. Just because public schools were established after 1870, does not necessarily mean that the literacy rate increased. State governments, for some inane reason, began equating the years of public education attendance with the ability to properly perform reading, writing, and arithmetic. This, however, was not an accurate measurement of how many American children could actually read just because they were attending public schools. In other words, just because a child attended school from age 6 to age 12, did not mean that the child could read, write, perform arithmetic, and solve problems at age 18. As such, the major difference between the basic libertarian society that existed in 1870 and the one that, over a hundred years, came to exist in 1970, was a severe lack of freedom and liberty that was incrementally imposed over the 20th Century upon the People by government regulation. People began to expect more from government than they could do for themselves through self-reliance. Of course, 20th Century America didn’t begin with a clamorous expectation by the People that duplicitous federal planning would create a behemoth federal government at the dire expense of working Americans. Theodore Roosevelt was heard to say in 1908 say, off the record but very seriously to John Hay, his Secretary of State, that the American people don’t know to any extent what is good for them, and need a wise parent, like me, to guide them. It is a historical fact that 98 percent of the State electorates (the working and non-working American citizens over 18 years of age) utterly opposed a federal income tax in 1900, just as much as they opposed it in 1789 and 1865. And they continued to oppose such a tax until the inexorable moment that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared, by Secretary of State Philander Knox, as ratified by the required number of State legislatures in 1913. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, and, especially, Woodrow Wilson wanted a federal income tax imposed despite the opposing will of the American people, and that is why it took a federal conspiracy and the fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment to impose an illegal unapportioned federal income tax on the People. If 98 percent of the American voting electorate of adult Americans were opposed to a federal income tax in 1910, how, in the name of reason, could the State legislatures ratify an amendment supporting an unapportioned income tax, something that had been despised by the Framers?
As 19th Century history correctly records, it was has always been about personal liberty and freedom, not about federal government regulation. The federal government has very few powers under the U.S. Constitution to tell corporations, companies, partnerships, store-ownerships, and individuals in the States what to do, and what not to do. The Constitution’s delegated federal powers only deal in inter-state matters; that is, inter-state commerce, and disputes between States over commercial matters. Before 1900, the federal courts were forbidden to enter into any issues that didn’t rise under the powers of the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. Those powers did not concern how much wheat a farmer could grow or how many cows he could pasture, or whether a store-owner in Yallahoochie, Mississippi could refuse to provide service to people he didn’t like. In order to create the Civil Rights Act, the federal government had to legislatively use the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8 to reach into the lives of Americans inside the States; and the U.S. Supreme Court unlawfully affirmed that power. By doing so, the federal judiciary became legislative in effect, wrongly interpreting that Congress could go beyond what it was forbidden to do in the 10 Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Most people don’t realize the scary effect of the precedents set by such abrasive action against the U.S. Constitution. If the federal government can exceed its powers and illegally use the Commerce Clause to regulate how store-owners in States should treat their customers, why couldn’t it use the Commerce Clause to legislate a law forcing citizens to have computer chips implanted into them to keep track of who is purchasing alcohol in the States, and how much they are drinking, or who is purchasing automobiles and where they are being driven? Haven’t federal laws been passed regulating one of the most personal issues around today, abortion? Haven’t laws been passed telling pastors and ministers what they can, and cannot, mention in their sermons before their congregations, if they want their churches to maintain a tax-exempt status?
One of the most austere federal powers coercively legislated as a U.S. Constitutional Amendment in 1865, and supposedly ratified in 1868, was the 14th Amendment and its Equal-Protection Clause. You see, this amendment, which would have been vehemently opposed by Framers, especially James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, was punitively herded roughshod through a vindictive Republican Congress without proper deliberation by the victorious Northern Republicans. Wisdom and prudence were certainly not shown by the Congress in its drafting, as was shown in the Bill of Rights. Though it was adamantly opposed from its debut in Congress by a substantial minority of Northern Republican senators and representatives and all of the Southern States (the former Confederacy), a coalition of pragmatic Northern Representatives, such as Thaddeus Stephens, used the threat of prolonged military reconstruction against the South in order to coerce the Southern State legislatures into ratifying the 14th Amendment. This stupidly drafted amendment contained the Equal Protection Clause, which was specifically intended to negate the 10th Amendment, and gave the Legislative branch the power to create any law it pleased, which would serve to provide legal protection for any person, or group of people, who regarded themselves deprived of what they construed as their legal rights. Why wouldn’t the Framers have considered such an amendment as proper? At the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted, the State representatives to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were all equally concerned about one very important issue, keeping the federal government small and under the control of the States. They did not want to allow a federal government to have power to dominate the rights and powers of the States, as King George III had tyrannically regimented the American colonies.
The Equal-Protection Clause was written specifically for the newly freed black slaves, without due prudent consideration, by one vindictive Northern Republican Representative, John Bingham, as a probably unintended means for any perverted individual, or group of perverted individuals, to claim discrimination under the U.S. Constitution when their perversions were challenged by the majority of the unperverted electorate. The 14th Amendment’s negatively encompassing effects were noted and opposed, after its ratification, by many wise and prudent judges and statesmen. This, for example, gave the Congress the power to legislate a law declaring the practitioners of bestiality, polygamy, and polyandry as a legally protected groups, if there were enough people practicing those perversions. This also provided a means for those people practicing bestiality to also be regarded by the federal judiciary as a “protected” group, and for the judiciary to punitively censure any other person, or group, who refused to accept the practice of bestiality as, perhaps, a lifestyle, such as what the judiciary has proclaimed about homosexuality.
In other words, the 14th Amendment was, and continues to be, an open-ended means for the federal government to exercise unlimited power over the inalienable rights of individual citizens. Though hard to believe, it is a fact that the American People went to sleep Sunday night, December 28, 1913, believing that Congress, the Legislative branch of the U.S. Government, was the only means of coining U.S. money and determining its value (in strict accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution), and woke on Monday morning, December 29, 1913, to learn that the Congress had relinquished, without Constitutional amendment, its exclusive coining authority to the newly created, and very unconstitutional Federal Reserve. In like fashion, the American People of the 21st Century might go to sleep one night and wake the next day to a new law that requires all new born babies to have RFID micro-chips implanted in their bodies for tracking purposes.
Does this sound too farfetched? Well, think about this. As far as law is concerned, Congress is, but is not, the only branch of the federal government that can create law. With the federal judiciary, as a quasi-legislative entity, one brazen lawyer practicing federal law (pushing a presidential agenda) and one duped mother wanting her child to have an RFID chip, could petition a federal district court, under the 14th Amendment’s Equal-Protection Clause, for the establishment of all newborn infants as a protected silent group (unable to speak for themselves) and, thereby, get a federal court, consisting of one tyrannical federal judge, to declare that all newborn infants should receive RFID chips, just like they declared, in one fail-swoop, that abortion was legal. Then if it was opposed, it would go to a federal appellate court, which, strictly by law, would in all probability uphold the district court’s ruling; and then it would go to the U.S. Supreme Court where, no doubt, it would be supremely upheld. If all of the federal courts are pushing the same presidential agenda for the creation of such a law, there is no way it can be defeated by proper due process of law. This is how the Nazi Courts of the Third Reich worked together to proclaim all of Hitler’s Nazi immoral and criminal law as legal and binding. This is where a nation of whimsical and pragmatic men and women exist, instead of a nation of laws, and the pragmatic goals of such people are hardly aimed at morality, prudence, and natural goodness, but, rather, at justifying the end results of the goals only by the means used to attain them.
I was recently talking to a very educated woman, a physicist and an accountant, holding M.S. and M.B.A. degrees, who has become convinced by her own investigation that 9/11 was an inside job, federally planned and orchestrated; but she finds it difficult to believe that the federal government could surreptitiously undermine the American constitutional republic to fashion it into a tyranny like Hitler’s Nazi Germany. I don’t see how any person could conclude, as this woman did, that the federal government could successfully orchestrate a conspiracy that murdered over 3,000 people on one day in 2001, and not be leary of its ultimate plan, of which 9/11 was just a part, to destroy the American Constitution and enslave the American people under tyranny. No American citizen wants to believe it happened, and is ultimately happening, as ordinary German citizens didn’t want to believe that German Jews, their neighbors and friends, were being systematically slaughtered like rats by the Nazi government, who regarded them as less-than-human vermin.
As I have said before, I will say again. It is all about freedom and liberty, or the soul’s right to breathe, as Henry War Beecher expressed in one of his many writings. But Beecher also said that, “There are multitudes of persons whose idea of liberty is the right to do what they please, instead of the right of doing that which is lawful and best.” The conspiring men and women, who would deprive the American People of their liberty, have succeeded in manipulating and controlling the mindset and perception of the malleable adult masses (the electorate) to cause them to use their freedom to behave in ways that are immoral, unlawful, and utterly detrimental to the preservation of liberty. Such behaviors, some of which have been deliberately manufactured by the federal government, are intended inculcate crises that incite fear in the general U.S. population. For some idiotic reason, the great outpouring of human expression from the American people, from 1800 until around 1880, through the use of their freedom and liberty to build, mine, and invest was regarded as a threat by the very small percent of wealthy men and women who controlled the banks, industry, the railroads, and the movement of American government. This consistent two percent of the population, who have continually had control of 98 percent of American wealth, had, early-on in the 19th Century, placed their earmark on the projected distribution of wealth in the republic. This is much more the reason that the American Civil War was fought than was slavery. The rights of the States, especially the Southern States, the People, to the liberty and freedom to economically pursue their dreams and to police their sovereign confines were not envisioned as proper by the very wealthy Northerners who wanted to see austere federal control over the economy and the people. Abraham Lincoln distinguished himself as more of a dictator and tyrant during the period of secession and war than as a Constitutional President in the tradition of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. He tyrannically forced the States to stay together under federal control and regulation, even when he probably knew that the Framers had unanimously agreed with Thomas Jefferson, in 1804, when he hed said that the Union was an experiment in republican government, and the individual States had a right to leave the Union, or secede, if they so desired. The loud clamor from a majority of the American Northerners, after 1865, for a quick repeal of the unapportioned federal income tax, which Lincoln had unconstitutionally imposed on the North from 1861-65, was an example of the Northern States demand for an end of the pragmatic tyranny that had been imposed on them. Lincoln had needed money to finance the imposition of his despotic will on the South, and he cared not for the illegality of the means to achieving his autocratic will.
Federal regulation and its manipulation of the behaviors of rank-and-file Americans, what they eat, how the food they eat is prepared, how much food they may produce, and how much land they may acquire to build and produce that food were some of the desired end-results of federal legislation starting during the reign of rough-riding Theodore Roosevelt, which inexorably continued through the 16 year socialistic reign of Theodore’s cousin, FDR. The teat of federal regulation and control began, surprisingly, with Theodore and the unconstitutional passage of federal legislation to control the State slaughtering of cattle and swine (as a result of Theodore’s reading of Upton Sinclair’s fictional “The Jungle,” and his vomiting during a tour of a Chicago slaughterhouse) and was forcibly inserted into the mouths of Americans very incrementally. After 1913, the expansion of such control was a designed precursor for the perceived need for federal revenue for purposes, unknown to the People, quietly designed by government socialists who advocated the regulatory economics of British economist John Maynard Keynes. With the unconstitutional establishment of regulatory law (no where mentioned in the U.S. Constitution) via the creation of administrative Executive agencies and the Code of Federal Regulations, during the 1930s, the continual expansion of the federal government forced itself increasingly more into the daily lives of the American People.
Now the second decade of the 21st Century is upon us, and most of the American citizens under 40 years-of-age don’t know, to any degree, what it’s like to breathe freely and to experience lives unfettered by government regulation. They cannot experience, to any extent, the freedom and liberty that my father had in East Texas and Oklahoma during his productive life, from 1906 until around 1977; and they can only have a smattering of the sensation of freedom that I experienced for a very short time, from 1951 until around 1970, when I enlisted in the Vietnam-era U.S. Marine Corps. After that, I only knew regimentation, and the taking of orders from the federal government, even after I was fully-discharged from military duty in 1977. The rules and regulations imposed by the federal government, and the copying and implementation of those federal rules and regulations by the State governments for the sake of receiving revenue sharing and grants-in-aid, affected negatively, in many ways, almost everything I tried to do after 1977.
It is all about the freedom and liberty to pursue happiness, which was descriptively written about in verse, essay, and fiction by Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, and William Faulkner. They experienced its thrill, and wrote about it. And it has always been about staying free. The bloody American Revolution was fought against the British because of tyranny from taxation and violation of natural law by King George III, and Benjamin Franklin tersely quipped, in 1788, that the Republic, which the Framers were making for the American People in the Constitutional Convention, would only endure if the People “kept it safe and secure.” But now, the federal government is sorely taxing the People, infringing upon the basic liberties and freedoms of the People, and regimenting and regulating the daily lives of the People ten-thousand times more severely than King George III did to the American colonists, who became the first U.S. citizens of the late 18th Century. But, sadly, a concerted outcry of indignation and revulsion has not been heard from a majority of the millions of the 20th and 21st Century American electorates, as an outcry was heard from a majority the colonial Patriots who sacrificed life and limb for their freedom and liberty during the American Revolution, when the shot was fired that was heard around the world. The federal government police, comprising the IRS, EPA, DHS, FBI, Secret Service, NSA, CIA, even the U.S. Postal Service, plus three-hundred more armed federal regulatory agencies, are tyrannically mistreating the American People and robbing them of their freedoms and liberties much more severely than King George’s Red-coats did prior to the American Revolution. I hope that I will live to see a second American Revolution; not a quiet one, but one much more bloody and life-changing than the American Revolution or the American Civil War, where the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. government, will restored to way they were prior to 1865, and the States, or the People, will again be given their God-given freedom and liberty to pursue happiness unfettered by tyrannical government. If it comes, I might be old and feeble, but the tyrants will, nonetheless, have to pry my opposing weapon of defense from my cold dead hands.
If the federal government does its dirty work behind the backs of the electorate, and if a majority of the electorate are too apathetic to care about the tyranny that is, in subtle doses, inexorably negating the liberty and freedom bequeathed to them by the Framers of the American Republic and the U.S. Constitution, it is just a matter of time before totalitarianism is declared. An uninformed electorate is that characteristic of a nation most inviting to the conspiring dealers of fascism. These real masters of deceit thrive on the ignorance of the People in their quest to enslave them. Correct knowledge is power, and the wise use of that knowledge is the wisdom to oppose tyranny through the blessed vote. Yet, there inevitably comes a time in course of a free people, kept free through a government’s proper application of law, when due process of law does not yield truth, liberty, and justice. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, when this happens it is time to alter or abolish such government, and to institute new government that will ensure the blessing of liberty to the People and their posterity. Perhaps that time has fully come.