State sovereignty is recognized in the Bill of Rights and incorporated into the Constitution for the United States of America as the 10th Article Amendment, to wit:
“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 powers so delegated by the federal Constitution are specifically enumerated therein and constitute a limit of federal powers.
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
- James Madison
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
- James Madison
“Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its act are unauthorized, void, and of no force.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.”
- Woodrow Wilson (Speech in New York, Sept. 9, 1912)
State sovereignty extends only to those matters strictly delegated by the consent of the people, all other matters being retained by the people.
“This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people, and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.”
- Constitution of the State of Ohio, Art. I, Sec. 20
“The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority
, or is introduced by its permission
-- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
The American Revolution resulted in the American peoples’ political separation from England, beginning a new experiment in self-governance by the people, whereby they became sovereigns without subjects.
“...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”
-- CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA, (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
Sovereignty is the ultimate power that controls government. Such power landed upon the people, having no King or higher power to whom they are subject.
“The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S.”
-- Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York); 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1-67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
The people’s sovereign status is recognized in law and has been codified in various State codes.
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, Sec. 11120 et seq.
“It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and that proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.”
“In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.”
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
“This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.”
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, Sec. 54950 et seq.
“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
“54950.5. This chapter shall be known as the Ralph M. Brown Act.”
Government has no power or authority to deprive the people of their sovereignty. It may only be surrendered by the people’s consent. Citizens of society surrender a limited portion of their sovereignty only as is duly delegated.
“To deprive the People of their sovereignty it is first necessary to get the People to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. That is done by getting them to claim they are citizens of that entity.”
-- 14 C.J.S. 426, 430
“As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action
, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ – that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement – ‘that all men are endowed’ – not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.’ – that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime
– ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these’ – not grant them, but secure them, - ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. …”
Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c.10. – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Field, in Butcher Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746
The people are not dependent upon government for their rights. However, government is dependent upon the consent of the people.
“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people.
The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App. – Dalls 1922)
Participation by the people in activities such as contracts or governmental programs, by itself, does not surrender the people’s sovereignty. Such surrender can only occur by one’s own intent to do so.
“It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.”
-- Merrion et al., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al., 1982 SCt. 394, 455 U.S. 130, 102 SCt. 894, 71 LEd2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148
The notion of “sovereignty” of the State or federal government is, in fact, a misnomer in the American form of government. Though we imply the State has certain Sovereign powers, in reality, the State is acting, ALWAYS, on behalf of the people, and therefore is a servant to the true sovereign -- the people.
“The words ‘sovereign state’ are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when applied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property.”
-- Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501
The people adhere to the powers delegated to government, by choice, without forfeiting their inherent sovereign powers. The people’s sovereignty over government is easily confirmed and verified in the language of our Constitutions and court decisions.
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary;”
-- Constitution of the State of Ohio, Art. I, Sec. 2
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental Rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secure by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men.’ For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”
[ 118 U.S. 356, 370].
“Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand [118 U.S. 356, 374], so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution.”
-- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
From our earliest moments as a unification, or Confederation (federation, i.e., federal, meaning separate, but acting in a united capacity), of independent States, our political leaders recognized the separation of authorities between the State and federal governments.
“[T]hat the laws of the Confederacy as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction, will become the supreme law of the land, to the observance … in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [States], will be incorporated into the operation of the national government as far as its just and constitutional authority extends
-- The American Revolution Revisited, by Chuck Baldwin, July 24, 2009
“The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America’”.
– The Articles of Confederation, Art. I
As a servant to the people of the States, the federal government must remain in compliance with the federal Constitution, and it is a duty of the States by their sovereign power over the federal government to protect State Citizens from federal governmental abuse.
“[¶ 10] The Constitution of this state is the bedrock of our society.
… [¶ 11] We realize that the General Assembly cannot spend money it does not have. Nevertheless, we reiterate that the constitutional mandate must be met
. The Constitution protects us whether the state is flush or destitute. The Free Speech Clause of the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the Thorough and Efficient Clause of the Ohio Constitution, and all other provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutions protect and guard us at all times.”
- DeRolph v. State, 97 Ohio St.3d 434; 780 NE2d 529 (2002)
“[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgements or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation.”
-- Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jefferson Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900, pg. 133
During the debates conducted in the various legislatures of the original thirteen colonies pertaining to ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the colonies made it quite clear that State independence and sovereignty would be retained by the States as a condition for ratification.
Ratification of U.S. Constitution for the State of Virginia (see Elliot’s Debates, circa 1830)
“We the delegates of the people of Virginia … Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will; that therefore no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled , abridged, restrained or modified by the congress, by the senate or house of representatives acting in any capacity, by the president or any department, or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes.”
In more recent times, government has debated the separation of State and federal powers, and as a result, an investigative report was conducted in committee to resolve the issue. It concluded that political jurisdiction (sovereign powers) is separated, and in only three instances does federal jurisdiction supersede that of the States. In all other instances, the States retain their respective authorities and sovereign powers over federal powers.
Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States (April 1956)
“The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction – by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17 … Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place,”
Id., at 41.
“It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or (3) unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal function,”
Id., at 45.
“The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,”
Id., at 46.
“On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government,”
Id., at 107.
By conclusion of the said report, the following is determined:
“No Federal Legislative Jurisdiction without consent, cession, or reservation. – It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or (3) unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions, and subject to the free exercise by the Federal Government of rights with respect to the use, protection, and disposition of its property.”
“Necessity of State Asset to Transfer of Jurisdiction to Federal Government: Constitutional Consent – The Federal Government can not, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State. Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that legislative jurisdiction may be transferred pursuant to its terms only with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer. As was indicated in chapter 11, the consent requirement of article I, section 8, clause 17, was intended by the framers of the Constitution to preserve the States’ Jurisdictional integrity against Federal encroachment.”
“State cession or Federal reservation. – The transfer of legislative Jurisdiction pursuant to either of the two means not spelled out in the Constitution likewise requires the assent of the State in which is located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer. Where legislative jurisdiction is transferred pursuant to a State cession statute, the State has quite clearly assented to the transfer of legislative jurisdiction to the Federal Government, since the enactment of a State cession statute is a voluntary act on the part of the legislature of the State.”
So, what can be found in Ohio case law that would give positive reinforcement to that which has been stated? A quick search reveals that Ohio does, indeed, recognize the separation of State and federal powers.
“Mr. Bowker claims, in part, that the defendants deprived him of ‘the Rights and Immunities afforded to him by the Ohio Constitution.’ (Compl. at 4.) The United States is not a party to or bound by the Constitution of the State of Ohio. Maxhimer v. United States, No. 5:98 CV 490, 1998 WL 556289 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 1998). There is no explicit indication that the United States waived its sovereign immunity for suits under the Ohio Constitution. Id. His claim against Agent Hassman for alleged violations of the Ohio Constitution fails on similar grounds. The Ohio Constitution only permits suits against state actors acting under color of state law, and not against the federal government or federal employees acting under federal law. See Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 510 (2d Cir. 1994); Hightower v. United States, 205 F.Supp.2d 146, 154-55 (S.D. NY 2002)”
-- Bowker v. Hassman, Case No. 1:05 CV 2487 (N.D. Ohio, 2005)
Finally, we can turn to the Founding Fathers to determine their original intent when constructing the federal Constitution. Their thoughts were conveyed to acquire public support in a series of published articles which became known as the “Federalist Papers”. There is no question that the original intent was that the States would remain independent and separate with respect to the federal government. Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the States are not “subordinate” to the federal government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole”, the one being domestic (State issues), the other, foreign (federal issues).
“The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”
-- by James Madison, Federalist Paper 45
Throughout the history of the United States, there have been those who would corrupt the original intent of the Founding Fathers to gain control and pervert the system of government they established. Since the War Between the States (mislabeled as the Civil War), a direct attempt to “reorganize” the States as mere municipalities of the federal government has taken place. It is time to re-establish the proper order of things.
“In the first place, we ask that they will agree to certain changes in the Constitution of the United States; and, to begin with, we want them to unite with us in broadening the citizenship of the Republic. The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do no, by making the citizens, made them voters, -- we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that ‘they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law.’ And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship – and our Amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.
- “The Reconstruction Problem”, speech by James Blaine, Skowhegan, Maine (Aug. 29, 1866), as quoted from “The Red Amendment”, by L.B. Bork, 2007 Edition, pg. 27
For those of you who are familiar with true American history and government, you will immediately recognize the inherent traitorous position the above words convey. For those of you who have become conditioned by our public school system, the above words will have little meaning, for you are a caged rabbit. However, this topic is beyond the scope of this short essay. I include the above quote only to demonstrate the intentional pursuits to convert the Confederacy into a Nationality. If you don’t know what that means, then ask. It is important, as it is the basis for what we are experiencing, today, with rogue government.
Further, the people have been warned to beware of government and to remain diligent in our duty to hold government accountable to the Constitution.
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“For it is a truth which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger, when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 25
“Ah, this is the constitution. Now, mark my words. So long as we are a young and virtuous people, this instrument will bind us together in mutual interests, mutual welfare, and mutual happiness. But when we become old and corrupt, it will bind no longer.”
- Alexander Hamilton
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, and gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
- John Adams (October 11, 1798)
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country … corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
“This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rules, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been false to the trust reposed in them. They knew – the history of the world told them – the nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued, human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.”
- Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 125 (1866)
The foregoing demonstrates but a small sample of information available that supports the notion of State independence and limitations of federal powers against the States and their Citizens. We, as a product of the public school system, have been led to believe that the federal government is all powerful, that its laws are supreme across the land in all instances, and that the States have no control over their own affairs beyond what the federal Constitution allows.
All of this is nonsense, and the proof is in the history as recorded by government, itself.
Now that we know, how will we act? Will we continue to hold onto false beliefs simply because we feel comfortable or are unable to reconcile reality? Or, will we recognize the truth for what it is, know for certain that our rights are recognized and guaranteed in our highest law, and utilize this new-found knowledge to effectuate positive change?
The truths I have set forth, herein, are a small part of that which is available for you to discover. But, beware, for once you know the truth, you have an obligation to act accordingly. With knowledge of truth comes great responsibility. We are as is stated, to wit:
“My people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”
-- Holy Bible, KJV 1611, Hosea 4:6
There is no excuse or redemption for voluntary ignorance.
For those of you who are just waking up to the truth, let me shed a little light upon you. This light is bright, so you may not be able to take it all in, just yet – (1) there is no Santa Claus, and (2) the United States is not a “country”. When you can confidently accept these tidbits as truth, then you have awaken, the world will not be the same place you once knew, and the expression “Ignorance is bliss” will finally make sense to you.
Please understand, my purpose is not to create confusion or stir up trouble by exposing flaws in people’s belief systems. Rather, it is to get you to think on your own, based on the facts of the evidence. I believe that before we can fix a problem, we must first understand the problem. Otherwise, we waste time and energy. And if we cannot properly diagnose the problem, then how will we ever recognize and formulate the solution?
As adults, it is time to discard childish notions and base our decisions on sound principles and facts. We must engage our brains to think wisely and engage our hearts to act passionately. As adults, we must set the good example for our children and grand children. For, if we fail in this basic responsibility, then their battles and tribulations will be much greater than ours.
If I have offended you, then I apologize. You simply are not ready.
If you believe this information is inaccurate, then please correct me with provable facts to the contrary. For mine is a search for truth, no matter how it finds me.
“Condemnation prior to investigation is the height of ignorance.”
-- Albert Einstein
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
- Mark Twain
“For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and provide for it.”
- Patrick Henry
“The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.”
- Tim Reeter
“The capacity of the human mind to resist the intrusion of new knowledge, is infinite!!!”
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”
- Mark Twain