Patriot Armory Lex-Gubernatio

8/7/2019 Patriot Armory Lex-Gubernatio

1/88

Lex Gubernatioor

The Law and Governmenta dispute forThe Just Prerogatives of Citizens

containing

The reasons and causes of the most necessary and just active resistance

against the federal and state governments of the United Statesand of the

Right of the citizens to defend themselves with arms against the usurpations of the federal and state

governmentsof the United States

and of the

Right of the citizens to replace the said current governments;in which their rights are asserted and defended against those who desire to enslave them with

unconstitutional, illegal, tyrannical or despotic forms of government.

In Fifty-Three Questionsby

Francis Marion


2/88

Question I

Whether the Citizens are the basis of all government, state and federal.

The basis of all government is the citizenry.

There are three spheres of government: 1) individual; 2) state; and, 3) federal.Individualgovernment consists of those rights as set forth in the Constitution of the

United States and commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights and the freedom with

which to exercise those rights. Such rights and freedom are not subject to

amendment, modification, abridgment or repeal by any governmental authority, at

any level, regardless of what power or authority the individual representing that

government may claim to assert, President or no. They are rights - recognized asbelonging to each citizen, individually, granted by God, Himself, and not subject to

restriction or such alteration so as to make them of no effect, by any other person

or authority.

State government consists of the citizens of a particular geographic location

recognizing that there are common needs to be met within each state due to the

geographic nature of each particular state as well as the cultural differences within

and without those states. The authority of the state resides in the people of that

particular state. No people outside that state, no non-citizens, have the authority to

interfere with the rights and freedom of citizens within a state or to do so in such

manner as to make the rights and freedom of citizens of that state of no effect.

Similarly to the federal government, state government was instituted to perform

those duties and responsibilities which are common within the society, culture and

geographic boundaries of each particular state, but no further. The authority of the

state government resides in the citizens of that particular state.

Federal government consists of those delegated duties and responsibilities to becarried out in the common cause of all citizens of every nation-state which,

otherwise, would require that those duties be performed on a state-by-state basis.

The authority of the federal government resides in all of the citizens of all of the

nation-states, combined.

None of the spheres of government has any authority over and above any of the

others, unless the citizens grant that authority through the delegation of powers toestablish and exercise such authority. The delegation of powers is not the ceding of

those powers. It is merely the appointment of certain persons to act on behalf of,

and in good stead of, those delegating the powers.

2 of 88


3/88


4/88

federal government and to control it; but simultaneously, to provide this new

government with the inherent authority requisite in carrying out it's tasks and

duties. It is those tasks and duties that become the focus of the question. For if it is

argued that the federal government exists with the authority to subject the

sovereignty of the nation-states, and the rights and freedoms of the citizens to the

will and desire of the federal government, then there is no limitation on the

authority of the federal government - and it may do as it will, when it will, how it

will, and the citizens will have no say. Such a meaning is preposterous at the least,

and denies the authority and power of the citizens over their own governments -

both state and federal.

To answer the question of the purpose of the federal government, then, it must be

understood that each of the various new nation-states, being individually

sovereign, in essence each a sovereign country in its own right, authorized by their

citizens to form a federal government, intended to do so for the sole purpose of

empowering that federal government with the common tasks that, otherwise, each

of the sovereign states would be required to carry out individually. In order to

accomplish this purpose the federal government was created with limitations

imposed on its authority, and with the sovereignty of the nation-states co-equalto

that of the federal government.

This equality of sovereignty was established intentionally as a bulwark against

federal encroachment upon the reserved powers of the nation-states and their

citizens. It was, and remains, the responsibility of the nation-states to stand against

the federal government when that government exceeds its authority by the

insistence on the sovereignty of the nation-states to pass on the enactments of thefederal government in regard to the constitutional limitations imposed on the

delegated powers. Where any nation-state determines that any enactment of the

federal government violates those limitations it is the responsibility, no, the duty, of

such nation-states to prevent its enforcement.

So long as the enactments and pronouncements of the federal government remain

within the limitations imposed on that government by the Constitution then all

nation-states and their citizens are bound to respect the authority of the federal

government and comply with its dictates. However, upon any attempt to usurp any

authority or power which is neither granted in the Constitution nor necessary forthe proper conduct of the tasks appointed to the federal government, it becomes the

duty of the nation-states, under the authority of the citizens, to stand opposed to

such attempts.

4 of 88


5/88

Question III

Whether having established the federal government, the citizens' act of

creating the United States created a country.

From the first constitutional convention to now, there have always been those

attempting to subject the rights and freedom of the citizens of the several states to acentralized government with the power to control those citizens. They are, herein,

referred to as nationalistic elitists. It was vociferously argued at the constitutional

convention that a strong, central government be formed and that the sovereignty of

the nation-states (i.e., the power of the citizens to control the central government)

be made subject to the central government. Those attempts failed.

The failure to establish such a strong, central government may be seen and

demonstrated from the history of the process of the ratification of the Constitution.

By the time the State of Virginia began the argument for or against ratification,

several other states had already ratified the document. Only nine states wererequired to establish a federal government under the Constitution which would

have subjected the states ratifying the same to its authority and caused them to be

foreign nations to any state which rejected the Constitution. There remained two

states that were considered to be waiting in the wings for Virginia's answer to the

ratification question, New York and Rhode Island. Neither of those two states were

considered to be willing to ratify the Constitution of their own accord.

Virginia, in ratifying the Constitution, put forth the argument that ratification was

approved only on certain and specific conditions - not the least of which was that

the central government not have any authority to subject the nation-states to lawsenacted by that government, if any nation-state chose not to obey such laws.

Additionally, the act ratifying the Constitution made clear that the power of

government resided in the citizens and that those citizens retained certain, specific

and inalienable rights which were not subject to government restriction or

intrusion.

Nowhere in the Constitution, or in any extant records, is there any authority to

create a nation of the nation-states acting in concert. Although it was specified that

the United States was a sovereign government, it was made perfectly clear that the

sovereignty of that government extended only so far as that sovereignty wasemployed to enforce its constitutional tasks and duties, not to exercise any

sovereign authority of its own making over any citizen or any party nation-state or

to engage in any activities with other nations of its own accord and for its own

purposes outside of the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

5 of 88


6/88

The United States is not a separate country and may act in a sovereign capacity

only so long as such acts are in conformity with the limitations imposed on that

government by the Constitution as directed by the delegating power the citizens.

Question IV

Whether the power of the federal government is from the citizens.

A simple reading of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States sets forth

the basis of the authority and power of the federal government. . . . of the people,

for the people and by the people . . . It is the citizens, not the government, itself,

its agents, its departments or even the President of the United States or the federal

judiciary, who determine the authority and power of the federal government.

Even the federal legislature is limited in its authority to enact laws. That authority

is constitutionally recognized only in so far as such laws are within the bounds of

the limitations imposed on the federal government through the Constitution and

only in so far as those are necessary to the purpose of the tasks and duties imposed

on that government. Any other law is unconstitutional and is null, void and of no

effect and no citizen or nation-state is required to obey such laws and no state is

required to enforce them.

All government within the United States local, state, and federal, derives its

powers from the citizens. Absent the delegation of power to the persons necessary

for performing the common tasks assigned to each of those levels of government,

there can be no legitimate claim to authority. Wherein, a power is not delegated, it

is retained by the individual citizen and is not subject to any governmental

authority.

Question V

Whether the federal government is from the citizens.

In delegating powers it is the authority of those doing the delegating, i.e., the

citizens, that determines the authority of those appointed to carry out the delegated

powers. It is the citizens who formed the federal government, through the

Constitution, and it is the citizens who retain authority over the federalgovernment.

Delegated authority does not carry with it the authority to autonomously increase

power without the consent of the those delegating the authority. Otherwise, to

delegate would be equal to ceding one's authority as well as one's rights and

freedom. Nowhere in the Constitution, or in the history of the nation-states, is there

a ceding of authority to the federal government to the extent of permitting that

6 of 88


7/88

government to interfere with the rights and freedom of citizens, except where

specifically and explicitly stated. All powers granted to the federal government are

so granted so as to permit that government to carry out its limited duties and

responsibilities and to act no further.

Question VIWhether or not legislatures have the authority to engage in the formulation

and enactment of laws outside the authority of their delegated powers because

they seem to them as necessary or proper.

If one accepts that all powers delegated to government are so delegated by the

citizens and that those powers do not derive from the ether, then one must accept

that such power to delegate always rests with the citizens and does not transfer to

the government, regardless of the assertions of those claiming to represent the

citizens. It is not the issue of representation that is at question here it is whether

such representation provides legislatures with the authority to enact laws outsidethe scope of the limitations imposed on those legislatures.

In order to answer the question we must determine, first, under what authority any

legislative body, local, state or federal, enacts legislation. If it be that the creation

of a legislative body is sufficient authority for that body to create laws at will then

it must be admitted that the creating power has, in fact, ceded its authority to

delegate its powers. For to permit any legislative body to legislate at will, upon any

subject it deems appropriate, upon the false claim of representing those who

delegated the legislative power, is to commit suicide by government. No instance

in history can be demonstrated where those who once stood in the role of servantwho then took upon themselves the authority to allegedly act for the good of the

master have been willing to cease at the point where their delegated authority ends,

if no resistance is met.

Consider: the legislature, whether local, state or federal, is granted certain and

specific powers. Those powers being delegated from the citizens are to be used to

enhance and improve the operation of the government under which the legislature

operates. This requires that the legislature enact only those laws intended to furtherthe functioning of the respective government within the limitations imposed by the

delegating authority. Should any act of legislation go outside those limitations andbe permitted by the delegators then the legislature will, as is human nature,

continue to expand and encroach upon the reserved powers of the citizens. If left

unchecked, this expansion and encroachment will continue to the point of

eliminating the rights and freedom of the citizens and their authority and power to

7 of 88


8/88

control their governments solely for the accumulation of authority and power by

those so empowered.

Such was obviously not the outcome intended by the citizens in ratifying the

Constitution of the United States or empowering the various nation-state

governments or the myriad local governments which exist among the severalnation-states. To argue otherwise is to argue that citizens have ceded their rights

and freedom through the concept of suicide by government.

Further, representative government, as set forth in the Constitution of the United

States, does not provide for the elevating of the federal government over and above

either the nation-states or their citizens. It was never intended to be so and is not

permitted to be so, now, regardless of what any federal magistrate or nationalistic

elitist might insist. The Constitution set forth the limits of power controlling the

legislature and the matters they were charged to deal with under their delegated

authority. Nowhere in that great document is the legislature permitted, outside theamendment process, to enlarge or, otherwise, expand the authority of the federal

government.

To make the answer to the question even more clear, let us define representative

government. There are those who claim that representative government constitutes

that form of government wherein the representatives use their best judgment to

vote on various issues for the citizens they represent, i.e., substituting the

judgment of the representatives for that of the citizens since the representatives are

in a position to know the details regarding the particular issues involved in any

particular matter.There are those who oppose that concept of representative government declaring

that their representatives are in Washington, D.C., (or any other capitol state or

otherwise) for the purpose of representing the determinations of their constituency

on each matteras the citizens have declared it to the representative. How wouldthe representative know what his citizens wanted him to do in any specific

circumstance? His judgment, of course, must be employed at some point or,

otherwise, he would be contacting his district on a moment to moment basis. Not

exactly the most expeditious means of governance ever devised. His judgment is

not to be substituted for that of his constituents, however, for his judgment is not

superior to theirs, regardless of how in the know he may be. It is his purpose to

represent their judgments in all matters of governance. He is to be theirvoice in

the vote, not his own. Where he is unable to determine the voice of his

constituency in any particular matterhe is not to vote on that matter.

8 of 88


9/88

Where a particular issue runs counter to the desires of his constituents, a true

representative will take the time to determine the mind of his constituency. He will

take the time to ensure that his vote counts for what they want, not for his own

purposes.

It does not matter if the representative disagrees with his constituency. That iswholly immaterial. He is not there for the purpose of agreeing with them in all

things. He is there to gather information and disseminate that information to his

constituents in order that they might make an informed determination on the matter

presented to them by him. He is then to take that determination and return to the

capitol and cast his vote in the manner which represents his constituents not

himself.

Regrettably, our current government no longer represents its citizens. The

representatives and senators from the various nation-states are out for their own

selfish interests. They vote on matters on which they have no knowledge merelybecause they have been so told to do by their Republicrat party leaders. They vote

in the affirmative on matters which they know their constituency has the opposite

desire. They vote for laws which will increase the tax burden on their constituents,

knowing their constituents are against such measures. They vote for laws which

increase their own wealth, power, prestige and authority.

Where is the representation in that manner of government? Who is it that such

representatives truly represent? They no longer represent the citizens of their

districts. They represent themselves and the federal government.

The current expansion of authority under which the federal government continuesto operate, promoted and falsely legalized by those pretending to serve their

constituency, is not only unconstitutional, it is rebellion against the reserved

authority of the citizens and the nation-states.

Question VII

Whether or not governmental authority, individual, department or agency is

authorized to act in such a manner so as to breach the rights and freedoms of

the citizens.

It must be questioned when a government authority individual, department oragency, including the President of the United States or any governor of any nation-

state, engages in activities which interfere with the rights and freedom of citizens.

To do so is to further the usurpation of authority already accomplished by prior

9 of 88


10/88

presidents and by judiciaries and legislatures bent on destroying those very rights

and freedoms, i.e., nationalistic elitists.

The question must be raised as to why the legislature and the judiciary would fail

in their duty to protect the rights and freedom of citizens against any incursion by

the Executive. The only possible answer is that they seek to preserve their ownpower, influence, authority and wealth and the means to maintain them.

The legislature could, if they so chose, prevent any such usurpations by the

Executive. But to do so would require that they forgo any emoluments they receive

through standing behind such actions by the Executive. This, they will not do. This

failure to stand for the rights and freedom of the citizens has been amply

demonstrated by the repeated misleading statements, manipulations and outright

lies promulgated by those in power for the sole purpose of retaining that power. As

proof of this claim, let it be shown on what grounds such an assertion is made.

Recently, these nation-states and their citizens have experienced an economic crisiscreated, controlled and maintained by the nationalistic elitists who would place the

nation-states and their citizens in the position of slaves to the federal government.

Those people are the ones who made financial decisions which have cost millions

of jobs, destroyed once acclaimed major corporations and resulted in financial

slavery for decades to come for the citizens of the nation-states in order that they

repay the trillions of dollars the federal government illegally provided to rescue

their friends, compatriots and themselves from decisions made in malice and with

greed which resulted in such economic failure and threatened their own standard of

living.At the expense of the rights and freedom of the citizens the federal government,,

with the nation-states failing to act to prevent them, throughout all three branches,

has worked steadily to enslave the citizens. They have done so in support of their

intention to subvert the American ideal as well as to protect their own power,

influence, authority and wealth and the means to maintain them.

The judiciary, also tasked with protecting the rights and freedom of citizens

through the enforcement of the Constitution and its limitations on government, has

wholly failed in its appointed tasks. Repeatedly, they unconstitutionally legislate

from the bench laws intended not to support those very rights and freedom ofcitizens, but intended to limit the authority of those who have the ultimate right to

control the federal government. They have done so willfully and intentionally so as

to permit the federal government to usurp more and more power for which it

cannot cite any constitutional authority. Thus, they fail to prevent the continued

10 of 88


11/88

conspiracy by the nationalistic elitists to deprive the citizenry of their lawful

authority over the federal government.

There is no point in the Constitution, except during the exigencies of war, where

the federal government has any authority to deny the rights and freedom of any

citizen for the purpose of asserting the federal government's superior authorityand power. Each and every such act, whether of an individual employed by the

government or the President, himself, or any department or agency of the federal or

state government, constitutes an attack against the citizens of the nation-states.

Each such attack constitutes an act of war against the citizens for the purpose of

rendering the federal government supreme.

Question VIII

Whether it is the duty and responsibility of state governments to interpose

themselves between citizens and the federal government when the latter

exceeds its authority.

Having determined that all governmental authority comes from those who are

governed, it is no stretch of the imagination to accept that state, as well as federal

government, derives its authority and powers from the citizens of the particular

state and that all powers not specifically granted to the state are retained by the

citizens. There exists, therefore, a top down establishment of authority with the

citizens at the top, the state next in line and, finally, the federal government at the

bottom. At each level, the authority and power exercised becomes more and more

diffused and, yet, stands strongest at the top where the rights and freedom of the

individual citizen stands supreme.

However, as it is established throughout human history that where government

exists it constantly attempts, on its own, to expand its authority over those who

establish and then accede to its governance, such is the case, here. The usurpation

of such authority and powers is a human failing that cannot be disposed of through

the niceties of society, promises of proper conduct or even, as demonstrated by

the existing government, through reliance on the actual wording of the

Constitution, itself. Without action to enforce the rights of citizens the Constitution

is meaningless.

So where do the states stand in relation to the citizen and the federal government?The states are supposed to stand in opposition to the federal government when the

federal government attempts to invade the sovereignty of the state (i.e., the

citizens) or to directly impose on the rights and freedom of citizens. It is the

responsibility of the governor of each state, employing those resources available to

11 of 88


12/88

him, to prevent the federal government from imposing any such unconstitutional

authority on either the state, as a whole, or any citizen, as an individual. It is not a

determination the governor, nor any citizen, should either take or act on lightly. It

is an immense decision to determine to block an action of the federal government

in imposing its will on either a state or its citizens. Unless, of course, the act of the

federal government is clearly outside the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

Thus, the nation-states are the sole, constitutional land-based military power in the

United States. They are intended to have the ability to use militia to prevent the

usurpation and enforcement of usurped authority by the federal government, while

the federal government is restricted to fielding only a naval force without any

ground-force presence in the nation-states.

How is it, then, that the state has the authority to do so? In establishing the United

States, the several states were set forth as co-equal in their sovereignty to the

federal government. Neither had, or has, the authority to force its determinations

upon the other outside of its sphere of governance or outside the limitations

imposed on its powers by the citizens without complying with the processes set

forth in the Constitution. No single state, operating independently of all others,

may require the federal government to perform any duty not set forth in the

Constitution. Likewise, the federal government has no authority to enforce its own

dictates upon any state which does not agree to, or accept, such determinations

when it finds those determinations to be outside the limitations of authority set

forth in the Constitution. To require states to suborn their sovereignty to that of the

federal government is to cede the states' sovereignty to that of the federal

government, an action that was specifically denied to the federal government andthe nationalistic elitists advocating such a position when determining the wording

of what has become known as the Supremacy Clause.

Additionally, it is worthy of repeating, that where the Constitution of the United

States establishes the federal government that same document limits the authority

of the federal government to carry out its tasks and duties. These limitations

provide that no branch of the federal government may operate outside the

delegated authority and powers provided to it by the citizens through the

Constitution and any attempt to do so is null, void and of no effect.

To argue that the authority and power of the federal government is superior to thatof the states and the citizens is to argue that the citizens have enslaved themselves.

What drivel. To so argue is to make the Constitution, itself, of no effect.

The protection afforded to the citizens of the states against usurpations of reserved

powers by the federal government is the interposition of the state between the

12 of 88


13/88

citizens and the federal government. Any state which determines that any act of the

federal government is contrary to the Constitution has, by right of sovereign

authority, the responsibility and duty to refuse to permit that act to be enforced or

in any way carried out within the boundaries of that state.

The state has no alternative to so suppress the usurpations of the federalgovernment. For the states, like the federal government, obtain their authority and

power through the delegation of same from the citizens of each state. That

authority and those powers not delegated to the state are retained by the citizens.

Each state exercises such authority and power within its boundaries dependent

upon the laws enacted in that state which are specific to the territorial, cultural and

social requirements of the citizens, as approved by those citizens, not by the federal

government.

Since 1789 it has been the abject failure of the states to stand forth against the

usurpations of the federal government and to permit the representatives of thecitizens to continue to expand, by illegal legislation, the authority of the federal

government that has gotten us to the position we occupy today. Had the state

governments stood forth, and if they were to stand forth now, the federal

government would be forced to retreat into the proper sphere of its authority and

the citizens could take that action necessary to ensure that no government, federal,

state or local ever again placed us on the edge of the destruction of our rights and

freedom or the sovereignty of our nation-states.

Question IX.

Whether the President of the United States has the authority to act so as tosubject the citizens and states of this Union to tyranny such that he is in no

way from the people, but by mere approbation.

Presidents have, since George Washington, acted to ever increase the authority of

the federal government outside the limitations imposed on that government by the

Constitution of the United States. They cannot cite any authority other than their

own, self-proclaimed mandates for their actions, or their personal determinations

to change the government, even when faced with the popular opinions against

their actions voiced by the citizens.

Nowhere in the Constitution is such authority granted to the President of theUnited States to involve the federal government in any issues wherein the federal

government has no authority expressly granted through that instrument. He can

neither dictate to, nor obtain the assistance of, the other two branches in

13 of 88


14/88

encroaching on the rights and freedom of the citizens of the sovereignty of the

nation-states.

If any President has the authority to act as he so chooses merely by voicing his

opinion that it is necessary that he act in any such situation so as to ignore the

limitations imposed on his conduct by the Constitution and if the legislature andthe judiciary fail to prevent his unauthorized usurpation of power, then the

President no longer represents the citizens since he has rejected the Constitution

and its limitations on his powers, as have the other two branches of the federal

government by failing to act to prevent the President's usurpation of power.

An example would be the Presidents' limitations imposed on the Second

Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. There is no authority for the

President, or any other branch, government person, agent or department, to limit

the rights and freedoms of the citizens as set forth in the Constitution.

Where the President invokes an unconstitutional authority to justify his actionsagainst the rights and freedom of citizens, such as a Presidential Proclamation or

finding, he no longer acts on behalf of the citizens and has gone outside his

delegated authority. In such cases, the citizens have no requirement upon them to

be obedient to his dictates or those of the federal government attempting to enforce

his proclamation or finding, as a whole, for he is no longer an elected official, but a

tyrant. The nation-states, on the other hand, do, in fact, have the requirement, the

duty, to protect their citizens from any recriminations or retribution by the federalgovernment for having declared the President to be operating unconstitutionally

and refusing to follow his dictates.Question X.

Whether or not the nationalistic elitists, in advocating a strong, central

government do, by reason, evince that the federal government is not subject to

the limitations on its powers imposed by the citizens through the Constitution.

The nationalistic elitists argue that the Constitution is a living document which is

subject to individual interpretation. If such is the case, then it must be admitted that

all citizens, with varying interpretations, are just as correct in their individual

interpretations as any government official and, by right, have the authority to

enforce their individual interpretations upon anyone whom they may be able tobring such force to bear.

Additionally, one must dispose of the amendment process by which the writers of

that great document, the nation-states who ratified it and the citizens who

14 of 88


15/88

supported that ratification were assured that no alterations were to be made absent

that process. To argue that the Constitution is a living document and not a

standard by which the federal and other governments are held accountable is to

argue exactly that the amendment process is meaningless and the Constitution is

dead.

These same people argue that the federal government has authority and power over

and above the citizens and the nation-states and that it has the right to enforce its

will on both. If such were the case, then the delegation of powers set forth in the

Constitution is of no effect since the living document interpretation negates the

authority of the citizens to control the federal government and obviates the basis of

government as coming from the citizens, based on whichever power or party

occupies the supreme positions of authority in the federal government from one

year to the next.

The structure of the constitutional form of government which was envisioned forthe United States was intended to be a top-down form with the citizens at the top,

the states next in order of authority and the federal government at the bottom.

Those who have perpetuated the sovereignty of the federal government over and

above the other two spheres of government have upended the intended structure.

In effect, those who argue that the federal government has the authority to act on

its own, without the consent of the citizens and in direct contradiction to their

rights and freedom, is to turn government upside down and elevate the federal

government to the status of slaveholder and the governed to the status of slave.

Question XI.

Whether the citizens cannot be capable of any power of government.

Those who advocate the living document doctrine are arguing, in other words,

that the citizens have no ability, no right, to control government. They further

advocate that governmental authority rests solely in the federal government, itself,

and in no other. By extension, they also argue that the governed surrendered their

rights and freedom when they instituted the federal government. In other words,

the nation-states which ratified the Constitution committed suicide by government

and no longer exist.

The Constitution, itself, exposes the lie. Therein, the citizens set forth that they

were, and are, in control and merely delegatingtheir authority to persons elected,

appointed or hired to carry out the duties inherent in that authority and only in such

a manner as those duties were carried out in accordance with the limitations

15 of 88


16/88

imposed by the Constitution. The question as to whether the citizens are capable of

governing themselves is answered, therein, where the citizens assert that the

federal government exists solely on the authority of the citizens and has no

authority, in itself, to expand its dominion.

Claiming the federal government is authorized to enter into spheres of governancewherein it has not been granted any constitutional authority is to argue that the

Constitution, itself, is no more. Any effort to so enlarge the authority of the federal

government is illegal. Any effort to enforce such an illegal act is an act of rebellion

against the duly constituted authority of the citizens. Any such illegal act is of no

force and effect and may, by right and by law, be resisted with force by any citizen.

The claim that the citizens surrendered their power to govern themselves or that

they are incapable of governing themselves is to argue in favor of elitism. It is to

argue that only those who can enforce their will upon others through the use of

force, economic or military, are the rightful authority in any government. Such anargument is to argue in favor of tyranny and despotism, arguments which were

disposed of by the blood of the very citizens who authorized the formation of the

nation-state and federal governments.

Finally, to argue that the citizens have no capability to institute powers to govern

themselves in accordance with their wishes, and to limit the power of any federal

government they install, is to argue that the Constitution, itself, could not have

been established by the citizens. Yet, it was by the authority of those very citizens

that the federal government was established. Therefore, the argument fails and

demonstrates in its negative that the citizens, do, indeed have the capability toexercise the power of government over and above any federal or nation-state

government that may exist. Further, the citizens have the inherent right to use that

force which is necessary to compel their governments, both federal and nation-

state, to remain within the bounds of the limitations imposed upon them by the

Constitution of the United States and their respective nation-state constitutions.

Question XII.

Whether or not the sovereignty of the federal government is so from the

citizens, that it remains in them, so as they may, in case of necessity, force the

compliance of the federal government with the Constitution and thelimitations on the government's powers and authority, if need be.

Understanding that the federal government owes its very existence to the citizens

of the several nation-states and that the power which established that government

remains with the citizens, it is incontrovertible that the citizens retain the power to

16 of 88


17/88

force the federal andnation-state governments to comply with the Constitution and

the limitations it imposes on those governments' authority and powers. To argue

otherwise would be to argue that the creature has authority and power over the

creator. Such has never been acceptable or even argued by any sane person.

The sovereignty of the federal government was established by the Constitution.However, it was not the only sovereign power to exist within the geographic shores

and boundaries of this continent. For each of the several nation-states retained its

own sovereignty, co-equal with that of the federal government. It is specifically

because of that co-equality that neither nation-state nor federal government has any

authority to intervene, or otherwise interfere, with the sphere of governance of the

other sovereign power. The citizens, having established the federal government

through the Constitution, granted to that government the sovereignty to act as it

deemed appropriate, within the limits imposed by the Constitution, to carry out the

powers delegated to it by those very citizens. Any interference by the states would

have the same effect as the federal government interfering in any state's authority

it would be void, null and of no effect. The federal government, in order to protect

itself in its tasks, duties and powers would, of necessity, be authorized to act in

whatever manner was required to ensure that its sphere of governance remained

intact.

Where the federal government acts outside that sphere of governance andimplements acts which are unauthorized by the limitations imposed upon it by the

Constitution on that government's delegated authority, the citizens, by right, have

the authority to contain the federal government, by force, if need be, within those

limitations. Should the federal government, regardless of who the personage maybe, including the President or any member of the legislature or judiciary, attempt to

resist the citizens, then that person is in rebellion against the duly constituted

authority of the citizens, who have the right to forcibly compel compliance.

Having successfully forced the government into compliance with the limitations

imposed through the Constitution, the citizens may, of right, rework the

Constitution as they deem fit and appropriate in order to prevent a renewed effort

to unlawfully expand the government.

Question XIII.Whether or not the federal government has the authority to expand its own

sphere of governance without the consent of the citizens.

It is asserted by the nationalistic elitists, those of the living document doctrine,

that the citizens are represented in the federal government by the congress and that

17 of 88


18/88

body, in its representative capacity, is the voice of the citizenry. Therefore,

whatever the congress formulates as law is law from the citizens. Such could not

be further from the truth.

Wherein, a congress was established through the Constitution, that congress was

tasked, first and foremost, with the duty and responsibility to protect the rights andfreedom of the citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states. Everything else

was, and remains, secondary to that responsibility. The only true power, then,

vested in the Congress of the United States is to enact only such legislation as isneeded to provide the federal government with the means of conducting its

assigned tasks and duties under the delegated authority as set forth in the

Constitution. However, the authority of Congress to enact such laws is, in itself,

limited, in that the power of legislation goes no further than that necessary to effect

the delegated authority of the federal government. Anything more than that is not

only unconstitutional, it is null, void and of no effect.

The argument against such limitation is specious, at best. For such denies that the

duty of the Congress is to formulate and enact only those laws which are in

compliance with the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Any law, rule,

regulation, policy or procedure which does not comply with those limitations is no

law, rule, regulation, policy or procedure, at all, and no citizen is subject to such.

No one who argues against this point is able to effectually demonstrate any

authority of Congress to so legislate as to act outside the limitations imposed by

the Constitution.

Any attempt by the federal government, at whatever level, to enforce suchunconstitutional laws may be actively resisted by the citizens, up to and including

the use of deadly force, if need be. It is not only the rightof the citizenry to resist,

it is theirduty to resist. But, it is only the cowardly unwillingness of the nation-state governments to act to contain the federal government and the capacity of the

citizens to endure such usurpations of authority and power which has permitted the

federal government to steal the authority and power that it has usurped.

Any argument to the contrary is to argue that the federal government exists unto

itself and that the citizens are servants of that government. Further, it is to argue

that the federal government is no longer subject to the Constitution.

18 of 88


19/88

Question XIV.

Whether or not he is more principally a president who is a president by the

Electoral College, or he is a president by the free election and suffrages of the

citizens.

How is it that any candidate not receiving the majority of the popular vote canbecome President of the United States when the citizens have stated their choice

through their vote? The Electoral College determines who will attain to the

presidency of the United States, not the citizens. How do these two bodies, the

citizens of the Union, as a whole, and the Electoral College, have the same ability

to choose a President of the United States? It was not intended, except in the case

of a tie of the popular vote, that the Electoral College would ever be employed for

the purpose of nullifying the popular vote. However, that is precisely how it isemployed in those instances where the candidate attaining the popular vote loses

the election. It is because the members of the Electoral College vote as they deemfit for their Republicrat party, not as the citizens of their respective nation-states

have voted.

Some argue that there is no right to vote set forth in the Constitution. They argue

from ignorance. There is most certainly such a right as set forth, therein, or

Amendment XIX would be meaningless in its entirety. Although the amendment

specifically refers to the right of both sexes to vote, it infers that the right to vote

exists at both the state and federal levels. To state otherwise would be to negate the

right to vote and render the amendment totally meaningless. It is perfectly, simply

and straightly stated that there shall be no interference with the citizens' (male orfemale) right to vote by either nation-state or federal governments

This right to vote includes the right to have that vote voiced by the Electoral

College. It is to negate the right to vote to argue that the Electoral College has the

power to elect, on its own determination, rejecting the voice of the citizens.

However, that device has been used repeatedly to defeat the will of the citizens in

electing the President of the United States. Those who question this assertion are

rightly and truly pointed to those elections wherein one candidate wins the popular

election only to be defeated through the Electoral College.

Any interpretation of the Constitution which asserts that the Electoral College isauthorized to vote other than in the manner the citizenry determines is to negate the

right to vote and to make the authority of the citizens over the federal government

of no effect.

19 of 88


20/88

Question XV.

Whether or not property may lawfully be taken by any government through

the doctrine of Eminent Domain.

The right of private property and the enjoyment, as well as the use, thereof, is

fundamental to the proper operation of a free society and government. There is noauthority within the Constitution permitting government to take property from any

citizen without that citizen's consent, otherwise, the rights and freedom espoused

within the Constitution would be fraudulent. All property which the government is

to use, not own, is that which has been ceded by the states for the purposes of the

tasks and duties set forth in the Constitution to be performed by the federal

government.

To grant any government its own authority to take property through the doctrine of

Eminent Domain is to grant that government the authority to turn the Constitution

upside down and to steal, by threat, force or intimidation, from the citizens. It notonly sets the government over and above the citizens, it negates the limitations of

power imposed on the government by those citizens. It is precisely this mechanism

that has been repeatedly employed by the federal government in order to steal

property from individuals and nation-states to form what we know as the National

Park System. Where private ownership of property has excluded, or prevented, the

formation of such parks the federal government has employed the illegal assertion

of eminent domain to forcibly take the property for its own use. Nowhere in the

Constitution is such authority granted.

There are some who would argue that without this right government would bestymied in its efforts to improve the infrastructure of the nation-states or to

progress. This is nothing more than a chimera intended to deflect one from the

true intent of the doctrine. It matters not whether the refusal of any citizen to sell

his property slows, diverts or even cancels a project attempted by government. To

grant the government the right to take any citizen's property is to grant the

government control over the citizens. An obviously illegal result in view of the

Constitution.

20 of 88


21/88

Question XVI.

Whether or not all men are born free and whether all men are, by right,

permitted to claim protection under the Constitution of the United States as

are the citizens of the states.

All sane men agree that all people are born free. Their circumstances may not beequal and, therefore, the ability to exercise their freedom may be limited, or even

nullified, but that does not negate their freedom. In order to live a life free of

interference by others it often requires that men shed their blood. It requires a

willingness to stand forth and loudly proclaim, To here they shall come, and no

further. Those who lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for their rights are,

usually, doomed to a life of slavery. More importantly, they are the ones who have

doomed their children and their children's, children's, children to lives of slavery

and hopelessness.

Thankfully, we were blessed by a generation of men and women who weredetermined not to permit any government to so rule them as to enslave them, at any

level. They fought. They bled. They died. They did these things in order to ensure

that their descendants would be able to live freely. Those who are lawful citizens of

the nation-states are beneficiaries of the sacrifices of those who established the

United States, by virtue of their citizenship. It is true that they owe a debt to those

who have provided the freedom under which they live, but they, forebears and

current citizens, have no requirement on them to either permit or fund the freedom

of those who choose to enter into these nation-states illegally or refuse to provide

for their own freedom, in their home nations.Upon establishing and ratifying the Constitution the citizens and nation-states

granted their ambassadors the authority to promulgate immigration processes and

controls within the limitations imposed, therein. These processes and controls

permit those who are not citizens to, over time, become citizens and to enjoy the

rights and freedom of citizens.

Until such time as immigrants actually become citizens only certain rights pertain

to them, not all rights. The most glaring example is that of the right to vote. For no

non-citizen enjoys the right to vote in local, state or federal processes. This is not

to say that such will never be the case once a lawful immigrant becomes a citizen,of course.

Those who permit, advocate or otherwise provide for non-citizens to vote in any

capacity are providing a means whereby non-citizens are stealing from citizens.

This theft is promulgated through the requirement to provide medical care,

21 of 88


22/88

housing, unemployment benefits, social security benefits, retirement benefits, etc.

Any government official of local, state or federal government who authorizes,

permits, or otherwise assists such to take place is involved in the effective

destruction of the rights and freedom of the citizens and the sovereignty of the

nation-states. The actions, or lack, thereof, of such officials is not legal, nor is it

constitutional, and as such is of no force or effect and no citizen is required to

support the same, either with their tax dollars or their consent.

Question XVII.

Whether or not the citizens make a person their President conditionally, or

absolutely; and whether there is such a thing as a covenant tying the President

no less than the citizens.

The President of the United States is elected conditionally. His term of service is

conditioned on the basis that he comply with the Constitution and the limitations it

imposes on his authority and power. Should he fail to abide by those limitations heis subject to impeachment and trial through the Congress and, if found guilty,

removal from office. This fact alone demonstrates that he does not have absolute

authority nor anything approaching ultimate authority. On the contrary, he is

subject to those limitations imposed by the citizens through the Constitution.

The citizenry looked to the Congress, through the doctrine of separation of powers,

for the specific purpose that each of the branches would ensure that neither of the

others would, or could, usurp any authority not expressly and specifically granted

to it. However, the Congress and the Judiciary have wholly and miserably failed in

their duty to protect the rights and freedom of citizens and the sovereignty of thenation-states from the dictatorial excesses of the office of the President and the

men who have occupied that office.

A covenant is, in reality, a contract. It sets forth the transcendency of the instituting

party (the citizens), the hierarchy of the parties (the citizens over and above the

nation-state governments, which are over and above the federal government), the

ethical requirements of the parties (the Constitution and the limitations imposed,

therein), the oath both parties partake of (that if the President does what is

required, the citizens will provide for him and that he will protect and defend the

Constitution while performing his duties) and the sanctions which result (bothpositive and negative) based on performance of the oath.

The Constitution established a covenant, or agreement, i.e., a contract, between the

citizens and the President that he would be, and would remain for his full term, the

President of the United States so long as he complied with the requirements of that

22 of 88


23/88

covenant. The question then becomes whether or not that same covenant ties the

citizens, as well.

It most certainly does. For those citizens, having delegated certain and specific

powers to the President, under contract, agree to perform certain duties, in return.

Those duties include but, are not limited to: obedience to constitutionally lawfulstatutes; acknowledgment of the superiority of the Constitution in all matters

delegated to the federal authority; the responsibility to assist in the defense of any

nation-state attacked by a foreign power; and, the responsibility to obey the

Constitution in dealing with fellow citizens and persons authorized to be within the

boundaries of the United States.

Question XVIII.

Whether or not the federal government, at any level, has the authority to

interfere in the rights and freedom of the citizens.

To answer the above question it must be determined where the rights and freedom

demanded and defended by the citizens of the several nation-states emanates from.

If it be that those rights and that freedom are bestowed upon the governed by the

government, then there can be no argument by the governed that the government

encroaches upon rights and freedom it bestows. For it has, as the bestower of those

rights and that freedom its own, inherent right to modify, amend or even repeal any

one or all of those rights and that freedom. But in the case of this federal

government the question must be asked which came first, the governed or the

government?

If, on the one hand, it is accepted and believed that the government came first then

it must also be accepted and believed that the government is the sole determiner of

rights and freedom. To that end, the federal government is empowered, under its

own authority, to do as it will not only with those rights and that freedom, but with

any citizen it chooses to murder, imprison, enslave or otherwise silence on any

topic at any time. To argue otherwise is to deny the government its own rights and

authority as the power from which emanates the rights and freedom of the citizens.

If, on the other hand, it is accepted and believed that it is those who determine to

be governed by a system they, themselves, created for the purpose and which they

specifically limited in order to prevent abuses of what authority is delegated, thenit must be accepted that the federal government has no authority, whatever, to tell

any citizen what that citizen's rights are and how to exercise his freedom. Any

attempt to interfere with those rights and that freedom constitutes rebellion against

the duly constituted sovereign authority of the citizens and each and every citizen

23 of 88


24/88

is, thus, empowered to not only deny such interference, but to refuse to comply

with any orders of the federal government by which it attempts such interference

and to use what force is necessary to halt the attempt, up to and including deadly

force, if need be.

Further, it is the duty and responsibility of the nation-states, individually, if it mustbe, to stand against the federal government on any attempt to encroach upon the

rights and freedom of any citizen by that government. Should a nation-state so

stand forth against such attempts to erode the right to keep and bear arms by the

citizens, as example, then that nation-state has fulfilled its duty only when it

prevents any attempt to enforce the erosion of that right. It is required by law, by

the Constitution and by reason to stand alongside any citizen within its nation-state

who will resist federal encroachments upon the reserved powers. Such resistance

may be that of armed resistance and such armed resistance is the duty of all citizens

where the federal government refuses to restrict itself to the limitations imposed by

the Constitution and employ force to further its illegal and extra-constitutional

excesses.

Question XIX.

Whether or not a despotic and masterly dominion of men and things support

and agree with the President because he is President.

There is no argument from those who are willing to exercise their intelligence and

search for the clues that there is, in fact, a despotic and nationalistic elitist

conspiracy engaged in a campaign of treason, rebellion and subversion, in other

words, outright war, against the rights and freedom of all the citizens of the nation-and the sovereignty of those same nation-states which comprise the United States.

These cabals have recently begun to publicly declare their purpose and accept

responsibility for the manipulations they have conjured in the past and will conjure

in the future in order to achieve their goals.

These men and women support and defend the President at all cost in all things, so

long as he toes their line. They do so because, the President is their front man. The

history of the presidency since Alexander Hamilton can be displayed as that of men

obviously beholden to those in power behind the presidency. Each president since

Hamilton has, historically, accomplished at least one major step toward atotalitarian regime in the US, intentionally or unintentionally, through unintended

consequences or through furtherance of the conspiracy. Those who either changed

their minds or, after having been elected, refused to cooperate when they were

enlightened as to the true purpose of these nationalistic elitists were either

24 of 88


25/88

assassinated, removed from office or defeated for re-election through the use of

controlled media. No other explanation fits no other explanation truly explains

the circumstances of the murders of those men and the defeats of the others.

It is not a conspiracy theory to state that there is a concerted one-world order

moving in the background of the federal government. This order is, for all intentsand purposes, in existence to interfere with the individual rights and freedom of the

citizens and infringe on the sovereignty of the nation-states in order to establish,

beyond any organized resistance, a nationalistic government so strong and so

controlling so as to exert that control from cradle to grave over every citizen.

Question XX.

Whether or not the President is, in effect, the Chief Executive of a public

concern and is, therefore, accountable to those in power above him, the

citizens.

There are many who claim that the President has an almost monarchical authority

that he can, at his will, make determinations by fiat that he deems appropriate or

necessary for the common good. He does so by executing Presidential Orders,

Directives, or findings, wherein, he makes determinations that some act, movement

or right, is a threat to the US and, therefore, he is exercising his power to limit that

threat. He has no such power regarding the rights and freedom of citizens or the

sovereignty of the nation-states which compose this Union. He was never

delegated such authority or power in the Constitution and no such grant of

authority or power by the federal Congress or the upholding of any such grant by

the federal courts is constitutional or legal and, therefore, such grants, and theexercising of those grants, are null, void and of no effect.

He is neither a monarch nor a dictator, unless he spurns the Constitution and,

therefore, no matter how appropriate or necessary for the common good he

deems any act he might otherwise attempt to foist on the citizens or the nation-

states, if it is not a power authorized by the Constitution it has no effect,

whatsoever, and there is no power within either the nation-states or federal

government with the legitimate power to enforce it.

It is worth noting that the framers of the Constitution chose the phrase Executive

branch in describing that part of the government to which the President is assigned.He is an executive:

hiredby the citizens, if the popular vote were to actually mean something, tolead a large, corporate concern; reporting to those in authority above him;

25 of 88


26/88

operating within the bounds of the limitations they have imposed on him, through

the Constitution; unable, by his own authority, to impose his will on the true

authority due, specifically, to the fact that all power that he has by virtue of his

office is delegated to him by the true authority the citizens;

hired by the greatest shareholder votes in the history of the world, if thepopular vote were to mean anything, to operate the most prestigious, the most

wealthy nation on earth. Not as a dictator, but representing the common will of the

citizens to the world; negotiating with friends and enemies alike to the best

interests of his constituency; striking against our common enemies as necessity

requires; and, ensuring that we, as a group, are kept safe in our lands;

hiredby those who would hold him to his oath, freely taken, to uphold and

defend that very Constitution by which he is hired, to ensure that the remainder of

government holds the rights and freedom of the citizens and their authority over

the government to be supreme to any operation of government not specifically setforth and delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

It is to his shame that he ventures outside the limitations imposed by the

Constitution. Where he does so he asserts a claim of being over and above the very

authority which placed him in his position. He asserts that he is greater than all

those who have banded together, if the popular vote means anything, to ensure his

placement in the most visible position of authority that the world has ever seen.

Not so visible because of the persons of the presidents that have, throughout

history, held that position. Not so visible because of the achievements of those

persons. But, so visible because of the representation of so many socially andculturally diverse people who have come together, as citizens, to place him in that

position of authority and, thereby, concentrating their economic and military might

for the good of the whole when necessary and diversifying that might to the

greatest benefit of the individual, otherwise.

International recognition of the person of the President is not recognition of that

person's demonstrated ability to have been elected to the position, if the popular

vote means anything. It is recognition of the power of the citizens for it is in theposition, not the person, that the power of the President lies. It is this power,

wielded on behalf of the citizens, that, if properly wielded, ensures not only the re-

election of the person, but the historical recognition of that person.

Wherein, the person who is President asserts an authority outside that of which he

is constrained through the Constitution, he asserts that he has determined his own

election to the position of President and is not in any way answerable to the

26 of 88


27/88

citizenry. Imagine if a man elected to the presidency were to come out and publicly

state such utter nonsense to the world. He would not hold the position another

twenty-four hours.

Is it any wonder that any chief executive in the business world, unable to produce a

positive result during his tenure, when faced with re-election by his shareholders isunable to secure the necessary number of votes to ensure he retains that seat? Why

would it be acceptable, then, to permit those holding the position of President to

retain the authority and power that goes with that position where they do not

uphold their oath or their responsibilities nor operate within the confines of the

limitations imposed by the true governing authority? No, they continually attempt

to usurp authority which is not theirs to wield. They continue to attempt to enslave

the very people who have given them the authority and power to ensure the rights

and freedom of those citizens, if the popular vote has any meaning.

It is the natural course of human events where a chief executive or any of those inhis cabinet or the various departments comprising the whole of the administration

refuse to perform in accordance with the dictates and responsibilities of their

positions of trust and duty that the true authority moves to eliminate them from

their positions. The citizens are permitted, by law and reason, to do so and to use

whatever force is necessary to accomplish the task. So it is with the federal

government. Having refused, repeatedly, to confine themselves to their rightful

place of servants of the common good for the entire citizenry, they, instead,

continue to rebel against the true authority. It is time to remove them, by force, if

need be.

Question XXI.

If the first duty and responsibility of the Legislative Branch is to protect and

defend the rights and freedom of the citizens.

The Legislative Branch consists of persons elected by majority vote from districts

within their own states. They are not beholden to the federal government for their

position, because their position is independent of the federal government. They are

employed to work within a branch of government directly and purposely made

independent of the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government.

They are, truly, ambassadors of the several nation-states comprising the Union and,as such, owe their allegiance to those nation-states and the citizens, thereof.

That independence was intended to provide for the security of the citizens, not the

aggrandizement of those elected to the various offices of Representative or Senator.

27 of 88


28/88

That independence was, and is, intended to prevent the consolidation of voting

blocks to achieve that which otherwise would be unachievable in the legislature.

Representatives and Senators are from the citizenry of their respective nation-

states. Unlike the President and the Executive Branch, being responsible to the

whole of the citizenry of all of the nation-states of the Union, Representatives andSenators are responsible to the citizens of theirparticularnation-state. They are

not in their position to achieve individual power, prestige, wealth or authority.

They are there, first and foremost, to ensure that the rights and freedom of the

citizens of their respective nation-states are not interfered with, or jeopardized by,

the actions of the federal government, current or proposed. They are to do so

through the exercise of their authority to vote, as granted by their respective

nation-states, within the assembly to which they were elected and on behalf of their

constituency.

If they fail to act accordingly the result is that the Constitution is destroyed, theauthority of the citizens made null and void and the Union, as it was envisioned, is

demolished. A heavy burden to bear, no doubt. Not one of those outcomes can be

asserted by any sane individual to be the intent of the framers of the Constitution or

the will of the citizens. The creation of the federal government was not a suicide or

enslavement pact.

To fail to act in accordance with their mandate as ambassadors to the Union from

their respective nation-states and to protect the rights and freedom of the citizens of

their nation-states and the districts from which they were elected, permits the

federal government to encroach upon those rights and that freedom as well as thesovereignty of the nation-states. To permit such encroachment permits the

usurpation of the reserved authority of the citizens by the federal government and

for that government to exercise authority where no such authority was ever

granted. It causes the Constitution to become meaningless. The more individual

nation-states' ambassadors have failed to protect the rights and freedom of their

citizens and the sovereignty of their respective nation-states, the more meaningless

the Constitution has become.

Their failure to act constitutes aiding and abetting rebellion. For that, alone, each

of them should be removed from office. At the very least, if convicted of suchtreason, they should each, individually, be imprisoned for a minimum of their

length of time in office.

Where they have acted to support the unconstitutional usurpation of unauthorized

authority and power, each ambassador should be arrested, tried and, if convicted,

28 of 88


29/88

deported from the lands of this Union. Where such treason has been determined to

have cost the life of any citizen of this Union, they should be executed.

Question XXII.

Whether or not the Legislative Branch is limited in the exercise of its

authority by the limitations imposed in the Constitution and whether thisBranch is duty bound to overwatch the other two Branches of the federal

government on behalf of the citizens of the states.

As has already been discussed, there can be no Constitution where those exercising

delegated authority and power determine the extent of their own power. It is,

therefore, plain on its face that the Constitution establishes limits for the

Legislative Branch as it does for the other two. To argue otherwise is to argue the

nullification of the Constitution in its entirety.

Some would argue that the legislature is free to do as it wills so long as what it

wills is properly voted and passed. It is a shame to see the waste of intellect that

called up this travesty. What if it wills to dissolve the Union and such a measure

were to pass through the legislature? Would that be constitutional? Or would such a

measure require a ratification process the likes of which is required any time there

is an effort to amend the Constitution? The legislature, in both its houses, is, in

fact, established with limitations on its authority as well as its power.

The legislature does not have the authority to replace the President at the will of

those bodies. There is a process established and laws which are required to be

followed for the removal of any sitting President, so long as the Constitution is

adhered to.

The legislature does not have the authority to enact legislation that has not passed

as required by the Constitution or is not within the limitations imposed by that

document. No law enacted by Congress is constitutional where that law exceeds

the limitations imposed on the federal government by the citizens through the

Constitution. To permit otherwise is to place the legislature, itself, in the position

of the dictator.

The legislature cannot turn legal acts illegal, by law, and impose penalties for that

which was not illegal before the new law was effected. There is a constitutionalban on ex post facto legislation. And yet, we have such laws on our federal andnation-state books. To whom do we turn to void such laws in a peaceful manner

the federal judiciary?

29 of 88


30/88

If it is agreed that the above limitations exist, then it must also be agreed that there

are others. Suffice it to say that the legislature of the Union is limited in its

delegated authority and the powers granted to it and all others not so delegated, as

for the Executive Branch, are reserved for the nation-states and their citizens.

Should the legislature venture outside of its limitations, then whatever laws itpasses are null and void on their face as having no authority to be enacted into law.

Any President who signs such legislation is party to the corruption of the

Constitution and the usurpation of authority and powers not granted. Any member

of the judiciary who upholds such legislation is, likewise, a participant in the

rebellion against the duly constituted authority of the citizens. All who side with

such legislation, regardless of their position, status or declared political party, are

traitors to the purpose and intent of the Constitution to protect and defend the

rights and freedom of the citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states.

Question XXIII.Whether or not judges are unequivocally and essentially judges, and the

immediate servants and protectors of the citizens, no less than the President,

or if they are only the deputies and servants of the President.

The Judicial Branch, also an independent branch of the federal government, was

intended to provide a final line of protection across which the usurpers daren't

cross. They, too, have their limitations as they are not intended to delve into

matters reserved for the nation-states to decide for themselves; to involve the

federal government in issues wherein that government has no authority; to legislate

from the bench; to decide cases on foreign law; or, to provide unjust, illegal orunconstitutional support to those usurping, or attempting to usurp, any of the

reserved powers.

These judges were supposed to prevent the abuses of the federal government and

the natural tendency of all governments to grow themselves farther and farther

into the reserved authority and powers. To permit such is to nullify the authority of

the citizens and to make the Constitution of no effect. If the courts were to fulfill

their duties then the egregious transgressions of the federal government would

have been prevented long ago and the current government would not be in a

position to enslave the citizens and destroy the sovereignty of the nation-states.Unfortunately for the free citizens of the US, such is most definitely not the case

when it comes to the federal courts. These courts, from the district courts, through

the courts of appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, have engaged in a

wholesale slaughter of the Constitution and devastated the rights and freedom of

30 of 88


31/88

the citizens as well as invaded the sovereignty of the nation-states through their

decisions undermining the intent, as well as defying the plain wording, of the

Constitution and providing false legal justifications for the usurpation of authority

and power by all three branches.

These courts have determined rights where none exist; denied rights plainly setforth in the Constitution; required citizens to pay, through unjust and illegal

taxation, for the support of illegal aliens; permitted interference in the established

rights and freedom of the citizens; permitted the invasion of the sovereignty of the

nation-states by the federal government; failed to prevent the other two branches

from eroding the rights and freedom of the citizens; illegally and unconstitutionally

legislated from the bench to enforce the personal beliefs of the judges, to promote

the desires of special interests and to attain their personal goals in regard to

society; and, used foreign law to justify the destruction of the rights and freedom of

the citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states of this Union.

It may be ignorantly argued by some that the 25 th section of the Judiciary Act of

25Sep1789 granted the federal courts the authority to involve themselves and, thus,

the federal government, in any question before any of the courts of the nation-

states. To that foolishness there is only one response and it is one that has been

stated before and bears repeating often and regularly. Where any law is properly

passed, in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, that law is

effective only so far as it conforms to the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

Any law which goes outside those limitations is null, void and of no effect and

there is no legitimate authority which has the right to enforce obedience to such a

law. Therefore, any citizen who chooses to disobey such a law is legally, morallyand ethically permitted to do so and is just as legally, morally and ethically

justified in resisting any attempt to force compliance with that unconstitutional law

as any pretender to authority who attempts to enforce it.

All of this, and more, have the federal courts done to support the efforts of the

federal government to expand beyond its allotted powers. At each step of the way

toward despotism, the federal courts have turned themselves inside out to discover

new and unique interpretations and applications of existing law to support those

who would destroy the foundations of the Union. They impose their dictates upon

the citizenry through threats, force and intimidation by alleged law enforcementagencies which are nothing more than military forces deployed among us in the

guise of protecting us since they have stolen our right to protect ourselves and

forced us to rely on their merciful protection which the same courts have ruled

they are not required to provide. The mental gymnastics through which the federal

31 of 88


32/88

magistrates force themselves in order to justify their decisions is ludicrous in one

respect and heartbreaking in the other. For they do no more than make fools of

themselves before men they deny justice before God.

The federal courts cannot be turned to in order to reverse the course of this

government in its relentless roll toward enslaving the citizens of the nation-states,diminishing the wealth of all of those citizens through fascist-communist-socialist-

nationalist agendas and creating their one world order. There can be no appeal to

those courts, because those courts are now part of the very system which seeks to

accomplish those heinous goals.

Question XXIV.

What power the people have over the state and federal governments.

All authority to govern derives from those who are governed. That this authority is

partially delegated to a few as over and against thousands and millions is no

dilution of that authority. It is merely an economy of management. A means of

easing the requirements placed on government. It is nothing more than that. It is

also nothing less than that.

It is the citizens who established the original thirteen colonies. Yes, at the time they

were citizens of England. True enough. However, due specifically to the abuse of

authority by the British crown and parliament, those English citizens living in the

colonies chose, after repeatedly being rebuffed in their efforts to peaceably resolve

the problems between them and Crown, to take up arms. Why? What was the

point? To create another nation? Not at all. They took up arms to re-establish their

authority over their own lives and property.

Is it any wonder that after having defeated the British in the First American

Revolution that the citizens of the, then, new nation-states of the new world, chose

to notcreate a newly combined nation, but to create a confederation of independent

and sovereign nation-states with a general government which had no real authority

to enforce the laws and necessary rules with which, and under which, it was to

operate? The scent and fear of a strong central government was still rife in the

nostrils of the citizens of the nation-states and they would have no such

government over them to tell them what they would, or would not, do or how they

would, or would not, dispose of their own wealth and property or how much oftheir wealth would be stolen from them in the guise of taxes to support the agenda

of a nationalistic elite.

32 of 88


33/88

The establishment of the Articles of Confederation formally recognized the

existence of thirteen independent, sovereign nations. These nations bandedtogether to establish a central government for the purpose of conducting commontasks between the new nations and other nations. Who retained the authority

behind the Articles? The individual citizens, through their respective nation-states.

They elected their state legislators. They elected their state executives. Theysignaled their support or lack, thereof, for new legislation through the use of the

vote. They determined who would remain in office or who would leave through theexercise of their own sovereign power the vote.

It is interesting to note that the citizens of these nation-states did not give up their

rights and freedom to the new confederate government. They insisted on, and did,

retain those rights and that freedom.

In ratifying the Constitution, it is claimed by some, the nation-states subordinated

themselves to the new federal government. Nothing is further from the truth orsuch a vicious lie. The authority and powers granted to the federal government are

referred to as those delegated to the federal government. Those not so delegated

are referred to as reserved authority and powers. The two are never to cross. To

permit such to happen is to permit the Constitution to be scrapped.

The reserved authority powers are reserved to the nation-states and their citizens.

Those reserved authority and powers not specifically reserved to the nation-states

are reserved to the citizens, themselves. If it is argued that the nation-states are

supreme over the citizens of each, thereof, then one must ask that if such is the

case, wherein do any of the nation-states vote in any manner on internal nation-state issues as states? They do not, because they have no authority to do so. All

voting is done by the citizens of

Documents

Patriot Armory Lex-Gubernatio