Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. In this 4 minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/documents/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.

Freedom’s Destruction By Constitutional De-Construction

by Chuck Baldwin’s Son: Timothy Baldwin
October 16, 2009

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is the author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also regarded as one of America's leading spokesmen for State sovereignty.]

During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a “more perfect union” (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.

Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.

Indeed, those who proposed such a national system of government (e.g., Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson and James Madison) would not have the people of the states aware of this proposal for fear of outright rejection of the Constitution and for fear that they would remove their delegates from the convention altogether, giving no chance of success for the ratification of a new Constitution. It was hush-hush for good reason. In fact, Alexander Hamilton was so tactful on the subject that he did not even present his nationalistic notions as a constitutional proposal, but only as his ideas of what America should be. (Ibid., 123) Despite these proposals, in the end, it was a federalist system that prevailed–a union of states and not a union of people, whereby the states retained complete and absolute sovereignty over all matters not delegated to the federal government. The states were indeed co-equal with the federal government. So, what was it about the national system that was rejected during the convention?

The most notable proposal reveals the underlying foundation for all national principles: that is, the national government possesses superior sovereignty to force the states to submit to the laws made by the national government and to negate any State law it deems repugnant to the articles of union. This supreme power was proposed (but rejected) as follows during the Federal Convention: the to-be national government should possess the power to “negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union.” (Ibid., 207) Hamilton, and his like, would have loved it had this national principle of supreme sovereignty been accepted by the delegates. Thankfully, it was not accepted. In fact, as the convention progressed, what became apparent to those who advocated for this national form of government is that their ideas would never be accepted and ratified.

History proves with absolute certainty that a national government and its assuming principles were rejected, not only by the framers of the US Constitution, but also by those who sent delegates to the Federal Convention and who ratified the US Constitution at their State conventions. More important than the limited powers of the federal government, the people of the states rejected the nationalist doctrine that the federal government had the power to negate State laws that it deemed contrary to the Constitution. (John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, [Washington DC, 1823], 15)

So, how is it that while the people of the states expressly forbade the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of the states the federal government can now control nearly every facet of life within the states and the states supposedly can do absolutely nothing about it? Most attorneys who think they know so much about America’s history and the US Constitution would say, “The United States Supreme Court is given the power to say what the Constitution means and that over the years, they have interpreted Congress’ power to reach the internal affairs of a State.” It is the “living Constitution” idea, simultaneously coupled with nationalistic doctrine, which proclaims that the actual meaning of the Constitution can change over time, and that such change is constitutional and does not deny the people their freedom protected under the compact of the Constitution. Interestingly, the “living Constitution” idea is only used when it promotes a constitutional “construction” that expands and empowers the federal government and neuters the State governments. The “living Constitution” idea (advanced by the British Parliament) in fact is the very notion that caused America’s War for Independence. (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237)

The ludicrous proposition of a “living Constitution” begs numerous critical questions involving the very foundation of a free society, not the least of which is this: If the meaning of the Constitution can change over time, why did the Constitution’s framers spend nearly five months debating which words should be placed in the Constitution? More than that, why would the framers be so emotionally, mentally, intellectually and intensely involved in the question of what form of government we will have: national or federal?

How can it be that the judiciary branch of the federal government, which is not even politically responsible to the people or the states whatsoever (and only ever so slightly to the other federal branches), has the sole and complete power to say that the states have no power to interpret and comport to the US Constitution as they deem constitutional, when that same power was expressly rejected to the national government during the convention? After all, Hamilton and Madison both admit throughout the federalist papers that the states have complete and absolute sovereignty regarding the powers retained by them and granted to them by the people of each State, just as any foreign nation would. Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the only check on power is another independent power and thus, the only real power that could check federal power was State power. They even expected that the states would use their sovereign and independent power to the point of being the voice and, if necessary, the “ARM” of the people to implement a common defense against the federal government.

Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the federal government can never force the states out of existence and can never strip them of their rights and powers possessed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, except as delegated to the federal government. They even refer to the states’ right of self-defense in this regard to resist federal tyranny. Was this mere “bait and switch” rhetoric to get the people of the states to ratify what they thought was a pure federal system? How can the states possess the absolute sovereign power to check federal tyranny when they are bound to submit to the federal government’s interpretation of the Constitution? The two positions are necessarily incompatible with each other. To say that you have power, so long as I say you have power is to deny your power altogether.

Quite obviously, in no place does the Constitution grant to the federal government (in any branch) superior sovereignty over the states. Instead, the Constitution requires ALL parties to it (State and federal) to comply with the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. All the framers agreed that federal government and federal law do not equal the “supreme law of the land.” Both the federal government and the federal laws are bound by the terms to which all must comply. Thus, all parties must be watching each other to ensure each is complying with the compact. And as was admitted by even the most ardent nationalist (i.e., Daniel Webster) of America’s earlier history, each party to a COMPACT has the sole right to determine whether the other party has complied with the compact.

But over the years, a political idea contrary to our original federal system was adopted–not through open discussion and consent, but by fraud and force. This position states that whatever the federal judiciary rules equates to the “supreme law of the land” and the states must comply therewith, regardless of whether the federal law usurps the power the states retained under the Constitution. What the nationalists were unable to obtain through honest and open debate during the conventions they have obtained through the erroneously construed “supremacy” clause of the Constitution. What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery.

America has been duped into accepting a national government, not by interpolation, but by deceptive “construction.” If the federal government has the power to usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, where is the genius in our framers’ form of government? Was this form of government the form that best secured our happiness and freedom? And if our framers in fact bequeathed to us a federal system, whereby the states were co-equal with the federal government in sovereignty and power regarding their powers, then where comes the notion that we now have a national system, whereby the states are mere corporate branches of the federal government? Where were the constitutional debates on that subject? Where was the surrendering of sovereignty by the states, which can only be done through expressed and voluntary consent? Where was the right of the people to establish the form of government most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do we just accept the fact that our form of government can change over time without express and legal action being taken to effect that change? God forbid!

In 1776, the colonies rejected the European (nationalist) form of government. In the UNITED STATES, the people of the states ardently believed that their freedoms would be best protected if each of their agents (State and federal) possessed equal power to check the other against encroachments of power and freedom. This was the “more perfect union” of the US Constitution. How could the founders have suggested that the US Constitution was a “more perfect union” as a nationalist system, when the nationalist system was the very system they seceded from and rejected? That is nonsense!

Ironically, the very document that was designed to perpetuate these principles of federalism has in fact been de-constructed to destroy those same principles, leaving us with the very form of government that our framers and the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected. In the end, if the people of the states do not once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism–the principles upon which America was founded–then this supposed federal power of constitutional “construction” will in fact be our freedom’s destruction.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091016.html

These Are Not Negotiable

by Chuck Baldwin
October 13, 2009

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies.”

I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured “patient sufferance.” For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties. We have watched the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do. We cannot drive a car, buy a gun, or even flush a toilet without Big Brother’s permission. We are taxed, regulated, and snooped-on from the time we are born to the day we die. And then after we are dead, we are taxed again.

In the same way that Jefferson and Company patiently suffered up until that shot was fired that was heard around the world, we who love freedom today are likewise patiently suffering “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” In fact, I would even dare say that these States United have become a boiling caldron of justifiable frustration and even anger.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our “line in the sand” and that we will not surrender under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing–no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred–that we will not surrender to Big Government.

Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry. It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean “absolute Despotism” and would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be “thrown off.”

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Men without guns are not free men; they are slaves. Men without guns are not citizens; they are subjects. Men without guns have lost the right of self-defense. They have lost the power to defend their families and protect their properties. Men without guns are reduced to the animal kingdom, becoming prey to the Machiavellians among them who would kill them for sport or for their own personal pursuits. As King Jesus plainly ordered, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) This we will do–at all costs.

The Right to Own Private Property

Like the right of self-defense, the private ownership of property is a God-given right that is rooted in the Sacred Text. As God told Moses, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.” (Deut. 19:14)

In fact, the history of Western Civilization is replete with the examples of free men who were determined (even at the cost of their very lives) to defend the right to own property. Without private property rights, men are reduced to serfs and servants. Like chattel, they feed themselves by another’s leave. This we will not do.

The Right to Train and Educate Our Children

Education has never been the responsibility of the State. From time immemorial, education has been the right and responsibility of the family. This, too, has its foundation in the Sacred Volume. “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. 6:4)

Therefore, the absolute right of homeshooling or private/parochial/Christian schooling must never be surrendered. Homeschooling, especially, is fundamental to freedom. It is not a coincidence that throughout history, most totalitarian governments forbade parents homeschooling their children. Any government–federal, State, or local–that forbids, or even restricts, the right of parents to homeschool their children has taken upon itself the uniform of a tyrant.

The Freedom of Speech and Worship

Speech and worship are matters of the heart and conscience (Luke 6:45; John 4:24). Only tyrants seek authority over matters of the heart. But, of course, that is what tyrants do: they seek to control men’s thoughts and beliefs.

Hence, the alternative media is essential to liberty: the Internet, short wave radio, as well as independent magazines and periodicals. It is almost superfluous to say that there is no such thing as a free and independent press among the mainstream news media today. In fact, the major media more resembles a propaganda machine than it does a free press.

The same can be said for most of the mainstream churches in America today. They more resemble havens for politically correct, Big-Government ideology than they do bastions of Bible truth. Therefore, home-churches and non-establishment churches are increasingly requisite to a free people.

The Right to Determine One’s Own Healthcare

The marriage of Big Government and Big Medicine has created a healthcare monster. Already, the dispensing of medical treatment is micromanaged by Big Brother in a way that has resulted in skyrocketing costs and inferior care (and in some cases, even death). President Obama’s universal health care initiatives that are sure to come (in one form or another) will only exacerbate an already untenable situation.

Free men and women absolutely have the right to refuse vaccinations for themselves and their children. Forced vaccinations (of any kind) are an assault against the very foundation of freedom. Free men have the right to choose their own physicians, their own hospitals, their own insurance programs, etc. They also have the right to refuse any and all of the above.

God is Creator. He is also Healer (Exodus 15:26). Therefore, how men choose to seek God’s healing is a private matter between them and God. Alternative medicine is a right. Already, our military personnel are used as human guinea pigs to test a variety of drugs and chemicals. Public schools also require forced vaccinations. And now the push is on to force the general population to take the Swine Flu vaccine. At the current pace, it won’t be long until all alternative medicines and treatments will be illegal and the federal government will be America’s doctor. This is not acceptable.

The Right to Life

2000 years of Western Civilization have perpetually reconfirmed that life is a gift of God. Both Biblical and American history repeatedly honor God as the Source and Sustainer of man’s existence. Therefore, evils such as abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia must be vehemently resisted. It is bad enough that any government (especially one such as ours) would legalize abortion, but the concept of FORCED abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia could only be regarded as a despotic attack on life and liberty of the gravest proportion. In fact, under Natural Law, such an attack would remove said government from the protection of Heaven and would place it in a state of war.

The Right to Live as a Free and Independent People

God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part of any hemispheric or global union.

There they are: seven freedom-principles that are not negotiable. As Jefferson said, we are “disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” But cross these lines and free men must do what free men must do: “throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091013.html