As I research each state’s Constitution for the accumulation of knowledge and Petitions for each state to recall their U.S. Senators I find curious notions and oddities in each one, especially elements from the Original 13 North American Provinces who stood up and said ‘ENOUGH!’
For the purposes of this Article I am going to focus on what I have gleaned from the Constitution of the State of North Carolina.
Some History needs to be spoken here as I have learned so much of North Carolina’s part in the movement of Human Freedom. Some bright spots are:
1771- Battle of Alamance – over 2000 “Regulators” face off with 1000 British regulars in what is said to be the first Battle in the War for Independence. Beaten, most of the Regulators head West to the Mountains and the about to be formed Watauga Association (now Eastern Tennessee) the first free White People of North America, as George III signed off on that Charter and relinquished any sovereignty over those peoples who had leased lands from the Cherokee Nation there.
1774 – The first Provincial Congress in all of North America, in the City of New Bern elects representatives to the First Continental Congress (1775).
Waxhaws – Virginia Patriots surrender and then face slaughter of some 100 of them by Tarrelton’s Green Dragoons. A 13 Year old Virginian, Andrew Jackson, later Governor of Tennessee and President of the United States of America is wounded and recovers there.
Battle of King’s Mountain – Scottish Commander Ferguson, under Cornwallis, rails a claim at the Freemen of Watauga and what is now West Virginia ‘Overthemountian Men’ to bow their knees to George III or he will lay waste to their homes and farms. The response was a forced march over 228 mountain miles in 12 days to Ferguson at Kings Mountain, where the battle cry of “Remember Waxhaws” drives these men (otherwise unengaged in the War) to make quick work of the Commander and his Ranks in about an hour. The only clear victory for the Patriots in the South in the whole war to that point, Cornwallis’ campaign in the South begins to unravel.
North Carolina is as rich and as flawed as any one of us. In her Constitution of 1776 is given her testimony that mirrors the testimony of the Declaration of Independence, in that it was George III who abdicated and abandoned his duty of protecting the Rights of the People of North Carolina as promised to all Englishmen in the English Bill of Rights (1689):
“And whereas, the continental congress, having considered the premises, and other previous violations of the rights of the good people of America…”
the Constitution thus reveals a scenario where a Sovereign has reneged on his duty to his subjects, to protect them, and their Rights, thus he has abandoned authority.
It is therefore, by his departure from law that George III was the lawless renegade, he was the outlaw, he in his tyranny was the Revolutionary and THE PEOPLE of the 13 Provinces united were the Constitutionalist, the Patriots.
While the following authority is suspect as it comes from 1895, it is none the less authoritative in many respects as it is written by Henry Campbell Black, M. A., Author of Black’s Law Dictionary. Mr. Black writes in his “HANDBOOK OF American Constitutional Law” the following at Article 8:
"RIGHT OF REVOLUTION.
8. The right of revolution is the inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers, change their polity, or effect radical reforms in their system of government or institutions, by force or a general uprising, when the legal and constitutional methods of making such changes have proved inadequate, or are so obstructed as to be unavailable.
This right is a fundamental, natural right of the whole people, not existing in virtue of the constitution, but in spite of it. It belongs to the people as a necessary inference from the freedom and independence of the nation. But revolution is entirely outside the pale of law. "Inter armes silent leges." Circumstances alone can justify a resort to the extreme measure of a revolution. In general, this right may be said to exist when tyranny or a corrupt and vicious government is intrenched in power, so that it cannot be dislodged by legal means; or when the system of government has become intolerable for other causes, and the [Page 11] evils to be expected from a revolutionary rising are not so great as those which must be endured under the existing order of things; when the attempt is reasonably certain to succeed; and when the new order proposed to be introduced will be more satisfactory to the people in general than that which is to be displaced. "Revolution is either a forcible breach of the established constitution or a violation of its principles. Thus, as a rule, revolutions are not matters of right, although they are mighty natural phenomena, which alter public law. Where the powers which are passionately stirred in the people are unchained, and produce a revolutionary eruption, the regular operation of constitutional law is disturbed. In the presence of revolution, law is impotent. It is, indeed, a great task of practical politics to bring back revolutionary movements as soon as possible into the regular channels of constitutional reform. There can be no right of revolution, unless exceptionally; it can only be justified by that necessity which compels a nation to save its existence or to secure its growth where the ways of reform are closed. The constitution is only the external organization of the people, and if, by means of it, the state itself is in danger of perishing, or if vital interests of the public weal are threatened, necessity knows no law."[7]
[7]. Bluntschli, Theory of the State, 477."
The above sentences of:
“Revolution is either a forcible breach of the established constitution or a violation of its principles.”
“…the regular operation of constitutional law is disturbed.”
actually describe what has been and is being done by the three Branches of government today, by ignoring the Constitution.
So how is my view of the statutory law that they have used to usurp our Rights correct?
Again, I yeild to Henry Campbell Black:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DEFINED.
1. Constitutional law is that department of the science of law which treats of the nature of constitutions, their establishment, construction, and interpretation, and of the validity of legal enactments as tested by the criterion of conformity to the fundamental law.
It is not I who write this. It is the author of Black’s Law Dictionary.
So, those who violate the constitution of a nation (note small “c” is not referring to the document but to the substance, its fundamental law) are the ones projecting a revolution.
Herein then lies our duty and Right, and a great explanation of what it is that we have faced:
“This right is a fundamental, natural right of the whole people, not existing in virtue of the constitution, but in spite of it.”
“…when tyranny or a corrupt and vicious government is intrenched in power, so that it cannot be dislodged by legal means…”
“…a great task of practical politics to bring back revolutionary movements as soon as possible into the regular channels of constitutional reform.”
“…to save its existence or to secure its growth where the ways of reform are closed.”
“…if vital interests of the public weal are threatened, necessity knows no law.”
The We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and We The People Congress have well discovered the reality of the present “intrencehed power” that has demonstrated that “the ways of reform are closed” and “it cannot be dislodged by legal means…” and thus the call of a Continental Congress is well at hand with legal options closed.
The work of these Petitions for Recall of U.S. Senators well fits into the function and purpose of the Continental Congress 2009, and as this author has found in the Constitutions of so many States, it is clear:
“…frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.”
“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.”
“rights … ought never to be violated on any pretence whatsoever.”
Do you want a Revolution?
You have been living in one and suffering under it for over 100 years.
Do we want to undo Liberty?
No.
We do not want a Revolution.
We do not want to violate the principles of our constitution/fundamental law. Our government has been doing enough of that, and such action cannot bring about it’s return, except perhaps the exile and banishment of the Revolutionaries in government and their families, and friends, from our beloved Nation, FOREVER.
Such action appears to be reasonable in the end, and in keeping with the right “to alter, reform … the government in such manner as they may think proper”, so that the diseased thought of the Revolutionaries/Tyrants has no home in this Nation ever again.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment