Gaddy: It Is All Relatively Simple

By Michael Gaddy

“All lawful authority, legislative and executive, originates from the people.” ~ James Burgh

“Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” ~ Frederic Bastiat

It is no small wonder that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are so greatly misunderstood in this era of the dominance of the Public Fool System and the almost complete lack of intelligent discourse on the subject by the majority of Americans.

The questions abound: Is it a “living document” or is it a dead letter? Is it outdated and in severe need of being amended or is it still relevant in our electronic age? Most of these questions and statements emanate from either a misunderstanding of the meaning of words or a complete ignorance of the intent of the majority of our founders and the state delegates who voted to ratify.

When the States sent delegates to Philadelphia in May of 1787, they did so to only amend the Articles of Confederation. Obviously, they did not send delegates to the convention to destroy their sovereignty or to create a government that would make the states that would ratify this Constitution subservient to that which they created. Imagine if you will a sovereign people picking a delegation to create a government to which they would all become slaves. Yet, when people claim that in the US Supreme Court is vested the power to overrule the will of the people and to declare the unconstitutional, valid law, they adhere to a principle of master and slave with employees of a government that was established to protect the rights of the people assuming instead the mantle of master.

To contemplate for a moment that a group of people who had just fought and won a war requiring much sacrifice and bloodshed, a multi-year war waged against the most powerful force on the planet in order to secure their freedom would then create a government that would place them under a more heinous power than that which they had just defeated is beyond comprehension and belief.

Did the people create a government for specific purposes in which the sovereignty was to remain with the people or did they create a government that would assume dominion and control over their very lives and the lives of their posterity?

The answer to the above question is actually quite clear. When the Constitution was signed in September of 1787 it had no power or authority whatsoever; it was merely words on parchment. It took the ratification of nine of the 13 existing states at the time by the delegates selected by the people from those states to meet in convention to make the decision on whether to accept the Constitution as it was explained at those conventions. These conventions were quite contentious; the delegates in many states were reluctant to ratify any such ruling document without the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

Rhode Island initially held a popular vote on whether or not to ratify the Constitution and ratification was overwhelmingly defeated. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers in order to counter opposition to ratification that was abundantly offered by the misnamed Anti-Federalists. Fear the Constitution would not be ratified led to a promise and later adoption of a Bill of Rights in 1789 to which James Madison would comment in his speech on the subject:

[The] great object in view, is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not act, or to act only in a particular mode. They [state recommendations] point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.” (Emphasis mine)

This statement delivered immediately prior to a presentation of the Bill of Rights to Congress for ratification is most revealing. Madison states “the great object in view” was “to limit and qualify” the powers that had been “granted” to the central government. Specifically, the Bill of Rights was written, ratified and adopted in part to “qualify” wording of Article 1 Section 1 in which the phrase “powers herein granted” was used. Also, there appears the total rejection of what we are now told our government is in this country: a democracy.

The Bills Of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, were intended to eliminate what was then known as the “tyranny of the majority.”

The concept of what would become the Tenth Amendment was included in practically every states submission of suggestions for a Bill of Rights. Note please the change in wording of the Tenth Amendment as opposed to Article 1 Section 1. Of particular note is the wording “powers not delegated.” Obviously, the Tenth Amendment was designed to change the word “granted” to the word “delegated.” Since the Bill of Rights was ratified “to limit and qualify” the powers of the government, by ratification, the wording and meaning of Article 1 Section 1 was indeed changed.

Why is this important you ask? Words have specific meanings. A granted power is a power surrendered and is unrecoverable while a delegated power is a power “entrusted” and therefore not absolutely transferred and recoverable should the power/authority so entrusted be abused or violated. Our founders were intelligent people; they knew the definition and meanings of words. The purpose of the Tenth Amendment was to prevent the central government from converting the powers “reserved” to the states and to the people into the “granted” powers to the government either by interpretation, usurpation or judicial fiat.

Therefore, if the Tenth Amendment was applied as it was intended and ratified, to limit, not increase the powers of the government, there would be no discussions of Obamacare, unprovoked wars, welfare, the war on drugs, abortion, gay rights, the Federal Reserve, encroachment on Public Lands, Agenda 21 and a myriad of others. Strict interpretation of this Amendment would place all of the above, and many more powers, outside of the realm of influence of the central government.

NewBillofrights_01The majority of the founders of this country, unlike those who followed who have used government as a tool of tyranny with which to enrich themselves and their cronies, saw government as a very limited entity, one which they instituted to protect their sacred rights.

These founders knew well the origin of those rights; they understood the meaning of sovereignty; they knew sovereignty was precious and could not be divided or given to others. They understood the concept behind the words of John Dickinson of Delaware and created and ratified a government that would respect and implement those words and principles. To proclaim or believe otherwise is to desecrate the ideas and sacrifices of our founding generation; those who would willingly sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their Sacred Honor, which many of them did.

We claim them [Rights] from a higher source-from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice.”

If people of my county, my state and my country wish to relinquish these rights because of cowardice or loss of comfort, I do not intend to allow them to give mine or my family’s rights away to a tyrannical government. To do so would be to declare government the god over all.

Our founders knew well the truth of the old axiom: “For those who have fought for it, Freedom holds a flavor the protected will never know.”

Do we side with our brave founders or with diabolical tyrants who claim government to be our god and master? The decision is relatively simple.

In Liberty


This entry was posted in Michael Gaddy on by .

%d bloggers like this: