Incorporation v. Interposition (Part 2 of 2)
The Sound Doctrine Of Interposition Is The Cure For The False, Deadly Doctrine Of Incorporation.
States’ rights, Doctrine of 98, Tenth Amendment, and nullification,[1] are some terms that are used interchangeably with interposition. Secession is the most extreme form of interposition.
Black's Law Dictionary: Revised Fourth Edition defines interposition:[2]
" Interposition. The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government.
The concept is based on the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reserving to the states powers not delegated to the United States. Historically, the
doctrine emanated from Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas 419, wherein the state of Georgia, when sued in the Supreme Court by a private citizen of another state, entered a remonstrance and declined to recognize the court's jurisdiction. Amendment 11 validated Georgia's position.
Implementation of the doctrine may be peaceable, as by resolution, remonstrance or legislation, or may proceed ultimately to nullification with forcible resistance.
The Constitution does contemplate and provide for the contingency of adverse state interposition or legislation to annul or defeat the execution of national laws." In Re Charge to
Grand Jury, Fed. Case No. 18,274 [2 Spr. 292].
Walter Williams, a black American, had this to say about a decade ago in “
The Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery:” [3] “
States should again challenge Washington’s unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.” Obviously, interposition is not rebellion; and it isn’t about racism. It’s impossible to overemphasize those two aspects in the present politically correct climate that has emasculated pundits, professors, preachers and politicians. Phyllis Schlafly put it this way: “
The feminists are powerful enough in the media, in schools and colleges, and in politics and government to intimidate most of their opposition, especially men.”[4] Cowards must be ignored, until they repent of their wicked disposition.
Anyone thinking that the 2nd Amendment was passed and ratified for hunting, gun collecting, target shooting, and self-defense must read The
"Revolutionary Second Amendment" [5] by Brent J. McIntosh, who clerked for Clerk, Hon. Dennis Jacobs, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: “
The revolutionary understanding of the Second Amendment is founded on the idea that the right to bear arms exists to protect the American populace from governmental tyranny…. This so-called ‘right of revolution’ is a fundamentally collective right; it does not exist for just any dissatisfied citizen to attempt overthrow of the government.” The right to “keep” is an individual right; and the right to “bear” against the federal government is a collective right, under the command of elected officials. As Prof. Stanley Bamberg noted in “
A Footnote to the Political Theory of John Adams: Vindiciae contra tyrannos:”[6] “
Vindiciae, therefore, does not argue for anarchy. It recommends resistance to tyranny based upon the authority of lower officers of the state.”
Book 4, Chapter 20, Section 31 of John Calvin’s
Institutes agrees that individuals are forbidden to rebel against government; but affirms that lower officers of the state have a duty to interpose against evil government.[7] Finally, “
The National Lawyers Association takes the position that there is a legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution.” [8]
Only the basest of depraved minds, enraptured by tyrannical beasts, would deny the Biblical right and Constitutional power of the states to interpose between their citizens and the federal government:
“Franklin went so far as to propose that the inscription of the Great Seal should read, ‘Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.’ Why did Franklin and Jefferson see the American emancipation from England in light of the emancipation of the nation of Israel from Egypt? And where did Franklin get the strange notion that, ‘Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God?’ The answer, according to Walzer, is that Franklin and Jefferson read the Torah - what they called the Old Testament - according to its original intention: they read it as a political text.”[9]
It follows that unqualified submission to tyranny is rebellion against God! [10] Let the “girly-men”[11] preachers rage in denial (John 8:44). They need to repent and feast their collective mind on the sermon of a real preacher, Samuel West, “
On the Right to Rebel Against Governors.”[12] He commenced with Titus 3:1 and included 1 Peter 2:13, 14; Romans 13:1-6 and other pertinent verses. The following is an excerpt from his roughly 16,000 word sermon:
….when they become the pests of human society, when they promote and encourage evil-doers, and become a terror to good works, they then cease being the ordinance of God; they are no longer rulers nor ministers of God; they are so far from being the powers that are ordained of God that they become the ministers of the powers of darkness, and it is so far from being a crime to resist them, that IN MANY CASES IT MAY BE HIGHLY CRIMINAL IN THE SIGHT OF HEAVEN TO REFUSE RESISTING AND OPPOSING THEM TO THE UTMOST OF OUR POWER; or, in other words, that the same reasons that require us to obey the ordinance of God, do equally oblige us, when we have power and opportunity, to oppose and resist the
ordinance of Satan.
Hear the words of Jesus Christ: “
It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God" (Matt. 4:4). How do Christian’s do that? It takes exegesis, application, and the power of God’s indwelling Spirit. The exegetes do justice to Romans 13. They go all the way back to Nero’s Rome and rummage around in ruins for clues. Leaving no stone unturned there, they fast forward to the present, without so much as a pause at 1776, 1787 and 1791,[13] and announce that Nero, not the Constitution, lives in whatever official happens to be acting unconstitutionally. By willful misapplication, their excellent exegesis has the same result as deadly eisigesis. They learned the black art (2 Peter 3:16) from their master, the Old Deluder.
“
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1).[14]
The Bible in Basic English renders
pas psuche as “everyone;” and the
Weymouth New Testament states “every individual.” If government officials are humans, they are subject to
huperecho exousia, which is the “Supreme Law of the land.” Contention to the contrary subverts the rule of law, “ordained of God,” by the rule of rebellious men! Expositors, missing that point, continue to Romans 13:2 making a case that is already fatally flawed. Application must include those who govern and the governed! America is a compound republic with vertical and horizontal separation of powers.[15] Government exists to secure the rights of those made in the image of God (Gen. 9:6).
Without a Creator, Jefferson's appeal to the "
Supreme Judge of the world" in the Declaration of Independence is pure nonsense and so are your RIGHTS! Your highest appeal is to the State, where godless might seizes your God-given rights. Mao Zedong declared, “
All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”[16] Think about it next time you hear someone scream separation of Creator and State. Think about what a person means when they emphatically state, "there are no absolute truths" in contradistinction to Jefferson's: "
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted!" Contrast Mao’s declaration with the following from The Thomas Jefferson Building: “
Beneath The Rule Of Men Entirely Great, The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword.”[17] When a society can no longer be moved by words to resist tyranny, it will be moved by the barrel of a gun past the point of no return. In the opening remarks of his 1983 Templeton Prize address, Alexander Solzhenitsyn emphatically stated three times “
Men have forgotten God.” [18] He continued with this observation: “
The concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries; banished from common use, they have been replaced by political or class considerations of short lived value. It has become embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system.”
Rush Limbaugh and Bob Barr acknowledged that abortion is murder. Several Christian leaders signed a declaration acknowledging, “
The direct and intentional taking of innocent human life in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and embryonic research is rightly understood as murder.”[19] Thirty-six states have fetal homicide laws and thirty states have unenforced murder (abortion) laws. But most politically conservative Christians prefer to substitute abortion for murder. Former Chief Justice Berger stated twenty-two years ago in
Bowers v. Hardwick that “
there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy….To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” [20] Politically conservative Christian organizations, sodomized by culture, use the term “gay.” Who knows what term their Republican masters will dictate for bestiality and child molestation, when those crimes become politically correct.
The history of the Supreme Court is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute judicial oligarchy over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:[21]
It was judges not legislators who by an act of "raw judicial power" struck-down the abortion laws of the states and created a constitutional "right" to abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
It was judges not legislators who ruled that a school district policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer prior to school football games violates the Constitution. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
It was judges not legislators who ruled that burning the American flag is "expressive conduct" protected by the First Amendment. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
It was judges not legislators who created a right of homosexual marriage. Goodridge v. Department of Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).
It was judges not legislators who ruled that the First Amendment protects "virtual" child pornography. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002)
It was judges not legislators who ruled that minor girls may obtain an abortion without parental consent. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976).
It was judges not legislators who ruled that a state law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms is unconstitutional. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
It was judges not legislators who ruled that sodomy is a constitutional right. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003).
It was judges not legislators who ruled that a university may use race as a factor in selecting students for admission. Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003).
“
Nine Men Against America: The Supreme Court and Its Attack on American Liberties” [22] was written in the middle of last century. The court has gotten worse, not better; because both political parties remain determined to establish a federal dictatorship. The conservative media, conservative political action committees, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, Richard Land, Albert Mohler and their hellish horde of wannabes are determined to help both political parties achieve that goal! Surely, the Spirit of God had those people in mind when 2 Timothy 3:5 was written: “
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
Pastor Chuck Baldwin[23] and
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Romans 13[24] teach the correct application of God’s ordinance to people and rulers governed by a written Constitution. Law professor, John Eidsmoe, wrote "
The Doctrine Of Interposition In Christian Theology" [25]to show that the divine right of the rule of law has various means to address subversion by the evil rule of Republicans and Democrats.
Stanley Monteith, M.D., had this to say almost a decade ago:[26]
Had our Founding Fathers believed they must respect King George III, we would still be British subjects. Two hundred years ago ministers taught that "resistance to tyranny is allegiance to God", and that we should have "no King but King Jesus". Two hundred years ago ministers taught that sin was wrong, that Hell was a place of eternal punishment, and that there was damnation for those who refused to accept salvation. Two hundred years ago churches influenced government policies, and church-sponsored schools produced a 95% literacy rate. Two hundred years ago children obeyed their parents, and the Ten Commandments were the foundation of American law. That is no longer the case.
Dobson, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, Richard Land, and Albert Mohler and others like them ensure that will never again be the case. Their motto is “no King but the godless GOP[27] and their wicked Supreme Court.” They are dedicated to neo-conning [28]politically conservative Christians: “
When Ron Paul was asked about Mike Huckabee's overt usage of a cross for a campaign advertisement, he quoted Sinclair Lewis as saying, ‘When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.”’[29] Laurence M. Vance called Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Lindsey, Thomas, and Boone, “
The Christian Axis of Evil” [30] There isn’t a "
dime's worth of difference" between Democrats and Republicans.[31] Politically conservative Christians must pry their minds away from Dobson, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, and Richard Land and associated ilk. That clan knows better than the Democrats; but they refuse to do any better than the Republicans.
Ken Connor replaced Gary Bauer as President of the Family Research Council that was established by James Dobson. Bauer left FRC to run for President in 2000. Connor left FRC in 2003 and help found the Center for a Just Society in 2005. He serves as the organization's Chairman and one of its principal spokesmen. About two years ago, he wrote “
Diamonds and Pearls: Are Christian Conservatives Being Bought Off?”[32]
If you are a faithful evangelical or Catholic, the Republican Party has a box they put you in—"values voter". They know that they need a certain number of voters from this box in order to keep their jobs. And they have a game plan: pay lip service to a few subjects that animate "values voters" right before the election and maybe, just maybe, they can win. They know
perfectly well that many "values voters" find it difficult to vote for Democrats, so they do the absolute minimum necessary to win us over and then largely forget us until the next campaign season. Part of this is our own fault.
For political operatives in Washington, Christian conservatives are often no more than a mass of voters to be energized and mobilized….They carefully calculate what needs to be said to placate us, and then move on to do what is necessary to cultivate the continued support of the business and special interest groups who fund their campaigns.
Christians should be no less fed up with national organizations that try to mobilize us every-other year with overheated rhetoric and bombastic letters…."Did you know that Senator Hilary Clinton wants to make prayer illegal in America? Did you know that the Democratic Party wants to force all pregnant women to have abortions? It's true! SEND US YOUR MONEY
NOW!"
It's time for Christian conservatives to reject the cheap, tawdry tactics aimed at manipulating us before Election Day….We want results, not just rhetoric.
We have a simple message for the Republican Party: stop "using" us in an effort to secure our vote. Give us substance, not symbols—or be prepared for disappointment in November.
Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo explains one of the reasons that resistance to the rule of evil men is, for all practical purposes, nonexistent:
“The parties who are interested in limited constitutional government are widely dispersed and not very well organized politically (i.e., the general public); whereas the advocates of ever-expanding legal plunder (the state itself, and all of its special-interest groups) tend to be much more concentrated and well organized. Therefore, it is the nature of politics that the enemies of constitutional limitations on government will win out….” [33]
Several of these widely dispersed groups could unite and possibly start to make a tiny dent in the rule of evil Republicans and Democrats: 1) National Federation of Republican Assemblies; 2) Constitution Party; 3) Libertarian Party; 4) America First Party and 5) the Ron Paul group mentioned by Sean Scallon’s "
The New Fusionism Joining Libertarian And Constitutionalist." [34]That group probably has many constituents of the other four.
The Republican and Democrat Parties are two sides of the same evil coin. Many living conservatives have been tossing that same coin since Goldwater’s defeat with the same result: Heads, evil wins; tails, good loses. DiLorenzo identified the problem and Scallon proposed the solution. "
The American National Election Studies Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior Party Identification 7-Point Scale 1952-2004" [35]demonstrates that voter sentiment is clearly not with the two major parties. The public is Independent; and the two major parties are dependent on excluding a third-party contender. The problem is easy to identify; but the Republicans and Democrats take advantage of the fact that the solution will be almost impossible to implement. That’s why both will continue to front and fund fiscal socialists and social degenerates for office.
The precipitating event that united the American colonists was tyranny. Walter Williams tells us that "
The War Between the States" resulted from states united into a Confederacy against tyranny. Obviously, the only thing that will unite those five groups into opposition against the evil duopoly is tyranny. Bush took the nation to the precipice of tyranny. What will stop McCain and Obama from taking the plunge?
The false doctrine of incorporation, spontaneously arising decades after the 14th amendment was passed and ostensibly ratified, broke the Constitution. This false doctrine is illegal and contradictory to God’s ordinance for America set fort in Romans 13. Christians are God’s children; but He expects them to act like adults and assume some responsibility. They are made in His image (Gen 9.6); and He expects them to act accordingly, in conformity to the image of His only begotten Son. The striking thing is that so many in politics and ministry act like “girly-men.” Occasional lapses can be expected; but prolong activity of this sort is psychologically destabilizing to maturity and warrants discipline that will in all probability be in the form of tyranny.[36]
Hebrews 11 is “By Faith!” That faith was combined with Biblical action including much more than prayer, fasting, preaching, taping, marching, networking, protesting, conferencing, talking about doing something, and more talking about doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different result. If THE WORD was made flesh (John 1.14), then those same words can animate American Christians to conquer sin in their lives and provide salt and light to a corrupt nation in darkness. Faith is the only modus operandi God acknowledges. Jericho can’t be explained. It just fell.[37] Faith works. Forty wandering years (Numbers 14:34) proved nothing else will.
Pragmatism is a proven means to perdition.[38] It will take miracles of Exodus proportions to extricate America from the morass made by decades of departure from God’s Will expressed in His Word. Out of nothing, from nowhere, this universe was instantaneously created by God’s Word. That’s the power God’s children have working for them, whenever they TRUST & OBEY![39]
The following expresses what the major political parties suppress in their unrighteous acts and obstruction of justice.
“Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun,” ed. Ross M. Lence (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992).[40]
“The States’ Rights Tradition Nobody Knows," Thomas E. Woods, Jr.[41]
“What States Rights Really Mean,” Thomas E. Woods, Jr.[42]
“The Sovereign States : Notes of a Citizen of Virginia,” James Jackson Kilpatrick , Originally published by Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1957, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Published by Old Line Press, Charles Town, West Virginia, 2007 This HTML version is Public Domain, courtesy of Old Line Press. This presentation is not authorized or endorsed by the author.[43]
“The Doctrine of Interposition,” AUDIO Larry Pratt, founder Gun Owners of America.[44]
“The Doctrine of Interposition. Its History and Application. A Report on Senate Joint Resolution 3, General Assembly of Virginia 1956 and related matters.” Committee for Courts of Justice and Senate of Virginia. Richmond: Division of Purchase and Printing, 1957.[45]
“Interposition: A Vital Pillar of States' Rights Doctrine,” Ryan Setliff[46]
“Standing Between The Butcher And The Baby: A Criticism of the Legality of Abortion and the Rights of the States to Interpose Themselves Between their Citizens and Federal Law,” Scott T. Whiteman, Esq.[47]
“America's 1st war for independence,” Doug Phillips[48]
“Call To Stand With Chief Justice Moore,” John Eidsmoe [49]
“State Interposition” Herbert W. Titus[50]
“Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants,” Junius Brutus[51]
“The Politics of Johannes Althusius”[52]
“The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury,” Michael Stokes Paulsen*[53]
“The Tyrannicide Brief (Pantheon), the first biography of John Cooke,” the barrister who prosecuted Charles I. Geoffrey Robertson [54]
“The Reformation Roots of Social Contract” David W. Hall[55]
“A Footnote to the Political Theory of John Adams: Vindiciae contra tyrannos” Prof. Stanley Bamberg[56]
[1] http://www.law.northwestern.edu/mainpages/curriculum/colloquium/Michael%20Paulsen.pdf State Interposition and Nullification. It follows, I submit, that state government officials, who likewise swear an oath to support the U.S. Constitution as "supreme law of the Land," are not bound to submit docilely to unconstitutional actions of the agencies of the national government. By the logic of Marbury, they cannot be bound by the erroneous constitutional views of organs of the national government, but are empowered, even required, to interpret the Constitution directly.
[2] http://www.morallaw.org/eidsmoe.html John Eidsmoe, Lt. Colonel, USAFR(Ret.) Colonel, Alabama State Defense Force, Professor, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law.
[3] http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=28 From Jewish World Review, Dec. 2, 1998
[4] http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2002/dec02/psrdec02.shtml Understanding Feminists and Their Fantasies, DECEMBER 2002
[5] http://web.archive.org/web/20001214194900/http:/www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/mcintosh512.htm
[6] http://web.archive.org/web/19970228214643/http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960810.html This one is only available via the WAYBACK; I have a copy in .pdf, if it is no longer available. Vindiciae, therefore, does not argue for anarchy. It recommends resistance to tyranny based upon the authority of lower officers of the state. As such, it should be considered an argument for a conservative revolution. At the same time, it brought the contract theory into play against the claims of divine right absolutism. In this way it contributed to later contract theory.
[7] http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/ 31. Constitutional defenders of the people's freedom Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer.======I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings, (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.
[8] http://www.nla.org/library/winter96/pg9.html America's Choice: A Limited Government Or A Totalitarian Government WINTER 1996
[9] http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=904 Judaism and Democracy
By: Aryeh Tepper http://web.archive.org/web/20070110104728/http:/www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=904
[10] Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all. Marbury v. Madison
[11] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUzUbtIptqQ Don't Be Economic Girlie Men!
[12] http://www.historicaldocuments.com/SamuelWestRighttoRebel.htm One of the most influential citizens in Massachusetts during the founding era, Congregationalist minister Samuel West delivered this sermon before the Massachusetts Council and House of Representatives in Boston, 1776.
[13] http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html The United States of America was built upon three fundamental documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Taken together, these documents form the basis of all our laws, principles and heritage. To destroy the principles contained in these documents is to destroy the country. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has been happening for many years now. The Law of Nature can be viewed in Romans 2:14-16. That our Creator is the Author of life is seen in Genesis 2:7. That God, not government, grants liberty is seen in Galatians 5:1. The "pursuit of happiness" is found in Ecclesiastes 3:13. http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Philadelphia-Constitutional-Convention-September/dp/0316103985 Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787, by Catherine Drinker Bowen. http://providencefoundation.com/store/products.php?section=3&categoryid=10 Defending the Declaration. After ten years of research and four years of writing, Dr. Gary Amos reveals that the evidence from primary sources is irrefutable: underlying the Declaration of Independence is a foundation of Biblical principles and Christian influence. The Bible and Christianity—not deism and secularism—were the most important influences on the framers. Amos laments that America's educational system denies or ignores almost all of this evidence; evidence he believes to be undeniable. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html The Preamble to The Bill of Rights THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
[14] http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B45C013.htm#V1 King James Version
[15] http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=111 Republic v. Democracy http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave47.htm And To The Republic, Coach Dave Daubenmire November 16, 2006, NewsWithViews.com http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388 Republic? Democracy? What's the Difference? by Alexander Marriott (January 4, 2003) http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm A Republic, Not a Democracy http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm A Republic, If You Can Keep It
[16] Mao Zedong, in the Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in Selected Works of Mao Zedong, 1965 http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_12.htm Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China.
[17] http://www.loc.gov/loc/walls/jeff2.html Around the west end window (through which you can see the Capitol), there are five semicircular or circular tablets, two of which are ornamented with the obverse and reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. The other three carry the following quotations:
[18] http://www.roca.org/OA/36/36h.htm It was Dostoevsky, once again, who drew from the French Revolution and its seeming hatred of the Church the lesson that "revolution must necessarily begin with atheism." That is absolutely true. But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.
[19] http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5358 First Things (October 2006). That They May
Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together,
[20] http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZC.html As the Court notes, ante at 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality [p197] and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215.
[21] http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8397/LEGAL/judges/index.htm When Judges Are Out of Order:
Judicial Nominations and Your Rights 6/22/2005 By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
[22] http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_Contents.html R O S A L I E M. G O R D O N
Originally published by THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY • NEW YORK, 1958
[23] http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin389.htm Romans Chapter 13, By Pastor Chuck Baldwin, August 10, 2007, NewsWithViews.com
[24] http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=013 In all nations of the earth there is what may be called a constitution-a plan by which a particular country or state is governed; and this constitution is less or more calculated to promote the interests of the community. The civil governor, whether he be elective or hereditary, agrees to govern according to that constitution. Thus we may consider that there is a compact and consent between the governor and the governed, and in such a case, the potentate may be considered as coming to the supreme authority in the direct way of God's providence; and as civil government is of God, who is the fountain of law, order, and regularity, the civil governor, who administers the laws of a state according to its constitution, is the minister of God.
[25] http://nordskogpublishing.com/publisherscorner/2008/01/eidsmoe-john-doctrine-of-interposition.html The doctrine of interposition has an interesting history in Christian theology. Understandably, it is often invoked when Christians believe themselves oppressed by a hostile government, and ignored or downplayed when the government seems favorable to Christianity. Always there is a tension between liberty and authority, and the Christian who believes in both liberty and authority is going to feel that tension more than most.
[26] http://www.radioliberty.com/nlmay99.htm May, 1999
[27] http://www.dumpmccain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6 Top Ten Reasons John McCain Should Not Become President, by Don Feder, February 15, 2008. Abortion – McCain’s vaunted pro-life voting record reflects the views of his Arizona constituents more than any real commitment. He supports subsidies for embryonic stem-cell research. In 2000, he told the San Francisco Examiner that “certainly in the short term, even in the long-term I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” (He later reversed himself under pro-life pressure.) Most critics view McCain-Feingold as an assault on the First Amendment, which it certainly is. It’s also one of the most destructive anti-life measures ever enacted by Congress. Under this so-called Campaign Finance Reform, a pro-life group can’t run ads criticizing the record of a pro-abortion legislator within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Needless to say, there’s no similar gag-rule for McCain’s buddies in the mainstream media. Elsewhere on the family-values front, McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He says it’s because he wants states to decide the definition of marriage (the only instance in which he’s on record favoring federalism), which is the same as saying he wants activist judges to decide.
Judicial Nominations – Though McCain denies it, columnist Robert Novak swears the frontrunner told him prior to confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito that the nominee was too conservative, and that he preferred those who “didn’t wear their conservatism on their sleeve” (like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy?). McCain was also part of the Gang of 14 which prevented a rules change that would have stopped unconstitutional filibusters on judicial nominations. Former New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman was responsible for the Supreme Court nomination of David Souter -- the most disastrous Republican appointment since Earl Warren. (The play was Rudman to then-Chief of Staff John Sununu to Bush Sr.) Rudman has a prominent role in McCain’s campaign. Rudman could be President McCain’s Attorney General, giving him more say on judicial nominations than anyone other than the president. In his 1996 book, Rudman wrote that Christian conservatives include in their ranks “enough anti-abortion zealots, would-be censors, homophobes, bigots and latter-day Elmer Gantrys to discredit any party that is unwise enough” to align itself with them. With Warren Rudman at his side, it’s anyone’s guess whether McCain’s Supreme Court picks would be appreciably better than Clinton’s or Obama’s... http://www.covenantnews.com/boys080404.htm It's Time for Conservatives to Dump the GOP!
[28] http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html We've Been Neo-Conned
[29] http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20080104.html We Desperately Need The "Confessing Church" by Chuck Baldwin, January 4, 2008
[30] http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance85.html Anyone who is familiar with my writings knows that I do not write these criticisms as an outsider. I am willing to match my Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist, Baptist credentials up against anyone. And yes, I know all about the doctrines of Islam and the dangers of "Islamofascism." But I also know all about the insidious nature of a U.S. foreign policy that sows discord, stirs up strife, intensifies hatred, and creates terrorists.
There is no telling how many thousands of Christian Americans that Bush administration lapdogs Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Lindsey, Thomas, and Boone have influenced. I am sure there are many other Christian leaders and wannabe leaders who, because they likewise serve as cheerleaders for the president, the war, and the military, are candidates for membership in the Christian axis of evil. Identify them, mark them, avoid them – and speak out against them if you can. It is only when Christians learn to look behind the façade of religious piousness that cloaks these Christian warmongers that the influence of the Christian axis of evil will be destroyed.
[31] http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance118.html Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference, Laurence M. Vance. Not only is there not a "dime’s worth of difference" between the Democratic and Republican Parties when it comes to just about anything, there is certainly no difference at all when it comes to increased federal spending, the expansion of government power, the destruction of liberty, and interventionism in general, both at home and abroad.
[32] http://www.centerforajustsociety.com/press/article.asp?pr=1400
[33] http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo74.html Constitutional Futility by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, July 21, 2004.
[34] http://etherzone.com/2008/scall060908.shtml If the Ron Paul campaign taught us anything, it's that it's possible for such seeming different and disparate groups can come together for common national cause and a common national platform that Paul ran on. Why not keep that unity for the future with a new national party instead being walled off in our non-major party ghettos? Everyone talks about forming a new party. They do all the time. But now the possibility truly exists among those who wish to see the U.S. reduce its empire abroad and at home and restore the values the country was founded on and restore Constitutional government to join a party that truly reflects its views instead of being unhappy members of the major parties always voting for the lesser of two evils.
[35] http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_1.htm Party Identification 7-Point Scale 1952-2004 http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_3.htm Strength of Partisanship 1952-2004
[36] http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/gen.cgi?book=job&chapter=034 “When tyrants sit in the throne of justice which under pretence of executing justice are hypocrites and oppress the people, it is a sign that God has drawn back his countenance of favour from that place.” Geneva Bible Note for Job 34:30. In the LXX, Job 34:29-30 And he will give quiet, and who will condemn? and he will hide his face, and who shall see him? whether it be done against a nation, or against a man also: causing a hypocrite to be king, because of the waywardness of the people.
[37] http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp No matter what agency God used, it was ultimately He who, through the faith of the Israelites, brought the walls down. After the people had marched around them for seven days, it was ‘by faith the walls of Jericho fell down’ (Hebrews 11:30).
[38] http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_judges1200.htm Pragmatism is the only "home grown" American philosophy, and it flowered during the golden age in American philosophy, involving such luminaries as John Dewey, Charles Peirce and William James. All were very much involved with the debates over Darwin, and it is no exaggeration to say pragmatism can be defined as an attempt to work out what Darwinism means for the mind--and hence for the human sciences. In a 1909 essay titled "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy," Dewey said Darwin "introduced a new mode of thinking that in the end was bound to transform the logic of knowledge, and hence the treatment of morals, politics, and religion."
[39] In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+4
[40] http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=549&Itemid=287 Calhoun turned to the doctrine of interposition, which defended the right of a state to interpose its authority and overrule federal legislation. The seeds of this doctrine were introduced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799. Calhoun first advanced it anonymously, in the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, penned during the summer and fall of 1828 for a committee of the South Carolina legislature. It is Calhoun’s articulation and development of the doctrine of interposition or nullification for which he was, and is, so well known.
[41] http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods44.html In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term "nullification" – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws.1
[42] http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods33.html Given that the states were the constituent parts of the Union, and had enjoyed an independent existence long before the Constitution had come into effect, they had to have some measure of protection against the federal government that they themselves had created. Certainly the federal government, which was merely the agent of the states, could not be permitted to have the exclusive authority to make authoritative judgments about the Constitution, since the obvious long-term consequence would be the eventual concentration of power in the federal government as it consistently handed down rulings in favor of itself. The states had to be able to make their own interpretations of the Constitution, to which they themselves had acceded, count for something.
[43] http://sovereignstates.org/books/The_Sovereign_States/SovStates_Contents.html “The Sovereign States is not only one of the most beautifully written Conservative books of the Twentieth Century, it is a superb combination of the very best historic analysis with the eloquent use of literate English. The clarity of Mr. Kilpatrick’s perceptions is rivaled only by the crackling cadence of his prose.”
[44] http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3170575441
[45] http://www.lva.lib.va.us/whoweare/exhibits/brown/doctrine_interposition.htm
[46] http://www.paleoconservatives.org/article/2006/11/interposition:_vital_pillar_states%2526%2523039%3B_rights_doctrine Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it follows that all acts contrary to the Constitution are usurpations. Several founding fathers counseled that unconstitutional abuses and usurpations of powers are not binding law.
[47] http://www.theamericanview.com/dictator/media/12/Standing_Between_Butcher_and_Baby.pdf Simply, “Interposition is an official act on the part of a State government to question the constitutionality of a policy established by the central government.”[12] Our federal government is one of checks and balances; the Executive veto and the Court check the legislature’s actions for constitutionality. Likewise, the Legislature and the Court check the President’s actions. But who checks the Court? “The right to challenge any usurpation of power on the part of the Supreme Court must by lack of alternative, if for no other reason, devolve upon the States.”[13] What does the Tenth Amendment mean if not that a State can interpose itself as a legitimate determiner of the Constitution to which it is a consenting party? Once a contract is formed, both parties have the right to ensure the proper enforcement of the terms of the contract and are not bound by the illegitimate breaches of that contract, absent a waiver.
[48] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56080 When confronted with an unlawful order in violation of state and federal constitutional law, the very "laws of nature and of nature's God" and the revealed higher law, this courageous magistrate interposed on behalf of the people to prevent tyrants from removing a monument to the law of God from the public square.
[49] http://www.americanheritageresearch.com/pdfs/JohnEidsmoe,ACalltoStand.pdf
[50] http://www.ccomcor.org/stateinterposition.htm You see the power of the state to interpose on behalf of its people in the name of this Constitution is a power that has been neglected not because it isn’t in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution but because they would rather have you not know that they have that duty. Life is much easier to say "the Supreme Court has spoken. We must obey."
[51] http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm Attributed to Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623) and Hubert Languet (1518-1581). Published in Amsterdam by Valckenier in 1660.[2} The authors of "the Judgment and Decree of the university of Oxford, Passed in their Convocation, July 21, 1683, against Certain Pernicious Books and damnable Doctrines" included Vindiciae contra Tyrannos among those contemporary books to be burnt for including the proposition "That if lawful governors become tyrants, or govern otherwise than by the laws of God and man [as} they ought to do, they forfeit the right they had unto their government."
[52] http://www.constitution.org/alth/alth.htm CHAPTER XXXVIII. TYRANNY AND ITS REMEDIES. In order that the ephors may rightly exercise this right of resistance to a tyrant, it is necessary that they pay attention to the following matters: (1) what optimates or ephors can resist a tyrant and are responsible for doing so, (2) when, (3) in what manner, and (4) how long and how far? http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/reprint/2000/118/25.pdf The ephors intervene in emergency situations and exceptional circumstances, which Althusius perceives to be perfectly natural. In case of a vacancy, they propose a new supreme magistrate. THEY DEFEND HIM WHEN HE FULFILLS HIS OBLIGATIONS CORRECTLY, THEY SEE THAT HE DOES NOT EXCEED HIS POWER, AND, IF HE BECOMES A TYRANT, THEY DEPOSE HIM WITH THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE. In the event of a deposition, of a tyranny of the minority, they alone exercise public power. Given that the ephors are mainly responsible for the federated provinces, the integration of provincial life into national life is greatly facilitated. “BETWEEN THE KING AND THE EPHORS, THERE IS ‘MUTUAL CENSORSHIP AND SUPERVISION’,” (XVIII, 91), bringing double profit to the kingdom because, “on the one hand, this guarantees the stability of its fundamental constitution, and, on the other, this facilitates participation of the provinces in the life of the state.”30 The prince retains executive power. Since the rights of majesty belong to the entire community and are represented by the ephors, he exercises his sovereign power through delegation, on the basis of a reciprocal pact, of which he is considered to be the proxy, and the community to be the authority. His investiture constitutes election, and his inauguration his charge. He is elected by the college of ephors. Relative to them, he is in the same position as the count is on the provincial level relative to the “state.” Throughout the ceremony of inauguration, he must subscribe to the “fundamental laws of the kingdom,” as well as to all stipulations that they deem necessary, and HE MUST TAKE AN OATH OF OBEDIENCE. ALTHUSIUS EMPHASIZES THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ELECTION, WHICH COMES FROM THE PEOPLE, AND CONSTITUTION, WHICH COMES FROM GOD.
[53] http://www.law.northwestern.edu/mainpages/curriculum/colloquium/Michael%20Paulsen.pdf D. State Interposition and Nullification. It follows, I submit, that state government officials, who likewise swear an oath to support the U.S. Constitution as "supreme law of the Land," are not bound to submit docilely to unconstitutional actions of the agencies of the national government. By the logic of Marbury, they cannot be bound by the erroneous constitutional views of organs of the national government, but are empowered, even required, to interpret the Constitution directly.
[54] http://hnn.us/articles/29235.html John Cooke and the King’s judges were tyrannicides, who pushed England to where logic (“right reason”) led, where law (Magna Carta) pointed and where God (the first book of Samuel) approved. It was a point that no other nation at the time or for another century would reach: a proto-democratic republic with constitutional safeguards for civil liberties.
[55] http://www.phillysoc.org/reformat.htm will seek to show that the evolution of resistance against monopolism had its root uniquely in the Reformation thought. There were, to be sure, seedling precursors to this Reformation thought (which I'll briefly mention below)-but they were few and far between. The quantum leaps of development from the years 1520-1650 were so monumental as to deserve notice as a signal and unique contribution.
(2) This Reformation evolution of Social Covenant was first manifested writ large in and is the origin of our Republic. Rather than a humanist version of social contract as the political glue of our society, it is more accurately the case that a decidedly religious, transcendent platform lies at the base of American society-despite the massive secularist mythos to the contrary.
[56] http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=27906 Published: Aug 31, 1996
Author: Prof. Stanley Bamberg
