An Open Letter to My Friends

Posted By on January 26, 2017

Dear Friends,

Over the past year, and especially the past almost three months, I have been subjected to an almost continuous diatribe of ridicule and insults directed at the now President of these United States, Donald Trump. These have been perpetrated by a biased, and dare I say it, prejudiced liberal media, and the demagogues of the Democratic Party. I have heard snickers, and received personal insults resulting from my supportive comments of the President, and most of them are baseless and lack substance, and are simply prejudicial.

Prejudice is an insidious demon that, in the words of Merriam-Webster, develops “so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent.” I have come to witness how the comments and derogatory remarks against President Trump, are just that prejudiced.

One thing I have learned in my life is only knowledge counteracts prejudice, and that knowledge must be based on facts, and not assumptions. We in America have lost our ability to learn, to research, and to critical evaluate what we read. When I take the words of someone who is prejudiced, and accept them as truth, then I become prejudiced. Further, to truly be able to evaluate a person, a subject, a teaching, or even a news report, I must open myself up to, in a word, read the opposition, those who are against the position I hold.

When the Presidential campaign cycle began for our latest election, I remained open as to who I would both support and who would receive my precious vote as a citizen of these United States. I listened to the various candidates, I researched their comments, and I listened some more. Initially, I was not enamored, or even supportive of President Trump. Yet, over the course of months, I was drawn to his message, and his person.

One thing I did, which few have done, was to research media articles on then Mr. Trump published before he announced his candidacy. These articles are quite telling, yes, quite telling. Again, before, he chose to run for the office of President, Mr. Trump as praised and lauded from those same media outlets who now excoriate him. He was praised for his treatment of minorities, for his promotions of women and minorities, for his financial dealings, and his generosity to those struggling financially. Forbes magazine even praised and defended his handling of the bankruptcies, sometimes forced upon him by mismanagement by subordinates and companies who had purchased properties from him. He received award after award for his civil and equal rights accomplishments. And the list could go on and on.

This man, who has been accused of the most horrendous forms of racism, has throughout his adult life done things which directly countered and destroyed racism. The golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida is a prime example. When friends were prohibited from golfing there by racist policies, what did Mr. Trump do? He bought the golf course and open it to all, regardless of race or creed.

I listen to lengthy one-on-one interviews with candidate Trump. He was respectful, polite, and thoughtful. He was calm and reserved, and gave answers which revealed a deep insight, and a breadth of knowledge which was unequaled by many of the other candidates. All the while, he gradually won me over. (It must be noted that up until the day I cast my vote in the Texas Presidential Primary, I continued to wrestle with my choice.) But, when I made my decision, my decision was made and I did jump on “the Trump Train.”

So, now, are you listening to those voices and media sources which are biased and prejudiced, and provide you nothing short of “fake” news? How do you respond when the President of the AFL-CIO comes out of a meeting with President Trump singing his praises and lauding him for the respect he showed to these leaders who so vehemently opposed him during the election cycle? Did they, and he (the President of the AFL-CIO) hear and experience something you are missing due to the sources of your news?

I would encourage you to consider your positions, and your prejudices. Yes, your prejudices. You are guilty of prejudging, and wrongly I might add, our President. Yes, he is our President. For those of you who are Jewish, our teachings encourage us to judge a man by his actions, in addition to his words, but his actions are more important. Are you judging the man by the 8-10 seconds snippets and misquotes, or are you judging him by his actions, and the entirety of his words and actions throughout his lifetime?

I am growing tired of your prejudicial rantings and ravings which are based on prejudiced and biased fake news. If you are an advocate who fights prejudice, then you must recognize your own prejudice.

Prejudice will only increase our divisions, and harm our country. Overcoming prejudice and giving peace and calmer heads a chance will draw us together, and make us stronger. Learn the lessons of the 1860 Presidential Election. Continued animosity, anger, and demagoguery will only lead to further destruction and pain.

I respect your right to disagree, but, please disagree with facts and not assumptions. Disagree using valid examples and non-prejudicial judgments based on historic facts, and not the heat of a volatile Presidential campaign.

Let us come together. Let us undertake respectful civil discourse. Let us converse and work together for the common good.


David Bozarth

What I Can And Can’t Talk About

Posted By on October 21, 2016

This week we experienced the final Presidential Debate of the 2016 election. It was a rough program to watch. The back and forth. The charges and counter charges. But most telling was that once again Hillary Clinton showed her lack of ability to keep government and military secrets. This has been one of the biggest controversies coming out of the debate.

The politically biased and highly inaccurate in a posting entitled, “Loose Nukes.” Ironically, the liberal author, one with little to no knowledge of information classification stated:

Most of the people tweeting that Clinton had “leaked” classified information by mentioning this window cited no specific information substantiating that to be true (or explaining how they themselves could know and openly discuss information that was supposedly classified).

This is essentially correct. Why? Because those of us who have any specific knowledge on the subject are prohibited from talking about it.

Over 3o years ago I was assigned to a nuclear missile submarine in the US Navy’s Submarine Force. My first assignment after Boot Camp was to Basic Enlisted Submarine School in Groton, Connecticut. There, a mere three months into my enlistment, I was introduced to classified material, and what I could and couldn’t say. For examples:

  • I cannot tell you how deep a submarine can actually dive.
  • I cannot tell you how fast a submarine can go.
  • I cannot tell you exact dates and locations of a specific submarine.
  • I cannot tell you specific operating parameters of almost all submarine operations.
  • I cannot tell you how many weapons the submarine actually carried.
  • I can tell you generalities, within certain established limits. (and some of these have changed since I was discharged, but I still adhere to those drilled into my memory)

After Sub School, I was sent to basic technical, then advanced technical schools. In my advanced technical school, called “C” School, I was introduced to even higher levels of classified information, those associated specifically with my job. I would eventually work on the systems associated with the Poseidon Weapons System. Once, again, I was told what I could and couldn’t talk about:

  • No talking about specific capabilities of the Poseidon missile.
  • No talking about the specifics of procedures and processes.
  • No talking about specifics of target assignments.
  • No specifics of actual range, or accuracy of the missile.
  • No talking about the specifics of how long it took to do anything related to the missile.
  • Yes, again, I can talk about generalities.

Then, it was on to the fleet and “my” boat. There I got to actually handle various classified documents of varying levels, from Confidential all the way to… Well, let’s just say some of the stuff was very highly classified. Additionally, I was assigned the collateral duty of maintaining and cataloging my divisions documentation and publications.

Finally, while I was being processed for discharge I was told basic points about how long it would take the classified information I possessed in my mind to become “declassified.” In most cases, I would never be able to share what I knew with anyone for the rest of my life.

There have been times during the subsequent years when I have been involved in conversations with friends, family, and co-workers, and they wanted to talk about the submarine or the missiles. Occasionally, someone mentioned reading something in Popular Mechanics, or Popular Science, and they brought up items which I could not talk about. I either attempted to change the subject, or I politely excused myself from the conversation. To this day I can state that I have never verbalized any information which was classified during my enlistment in the Navy.

Finally, I can state, that if I were to make a statement similar to that spoken by Hillary Clinton during the debate, I could be arrested, convicted, and spend time in jail for disclosing classified information. Also, without reservation, from my knowledge I can aver that what she said was classified, and I don’t care if you can read it somewhere else. I know the timeframes associated with the operations of the submarine I was on in response to directives from the President, but you will never hear the exact times, or even something close to the exact time, come out of my mouth. EVER! It’s classified.

Oh, and by the way, my submarine no longer exists, and the Poseidon missile system was taken out of service some time ago. But, secrets are secret.

Justice Shall You Pursue

Posted By on October 11, 2016

tzedekOn the eve of Yom Kippur all thoughts turn to Justice. One of the primary values of Judaism is, “Tzedek, tzedek, tirdof,” “Justice, justice you shall pursue.” (Deut. 16:20) This has been a cornerstone of Judaism and America.

This should be a major, if not primary concern for every American voter, and especially American Jews this final month before the 2016 Presidential Election. Justice, our political system was built upon it. Justice, our system of laws was founded on it. Justice, our government and the Rule of Law have been intended to support it, and to work within it. Justice, our lives, our sovereignty, our courts, our government, our society depends on it. Should JUSTICE cease, fail, OR fall by the wayside, everything we know, love and cherish will cease to exist.

As a person, my life depends upon justice, and my family depends on justice. I live my life, do my work, and practice my faith relying on justice. I have served on juries, and practiced justice. As a manager, my management style, and how I deal with employees are dependent upon the concepts and the value of justice. I have been confronted with situations which have ultimately come down to making a decision rested on the proper application of justice.

This election year, now, my vote is being determined by JUSTICE.

One of the abiding concepts I’ve learned in my life is, “Actions speak louder than words.” Yes, words are important, but even more importantly, it is ACTIONS which reveal the true nature of a man or a woman. Should I judge someone by what they say, or what they do, or have done? Which is a more reliable source of evidence, words or actions? As a manager, it is your actions to which I will hold you accountable. You tell me one thing, and do another, it is what you did that will hold the day. If you say you will doing something and don’t, your actions will be the determination of my response. Should you tell me you won’t, or can’t, do something, then do it, and succeed, it is your success that will win my praise and approbation. Actions, what have you done. I don’t care if your a subordinate manager, a supervisor, or the average employee, you will all be measured by your actionsNOT your position, status, income, or looks. This is justice. In fact, the higher your position, the greater your responsibility, the greater you will be held to account for your actions. JUSTICE.

So, here we sit, on the verge of one of the most important presidential elections in my lifetime. How do I respond using the value of “tzedek, tzedek tirdof,” “justice, justice shall you pursue?”

On one side, we are presented a candidate who has perverted justice for her entire life. In one of her first cases as a lawyer, she got a guilty man off on a technicality, THEN attacked and slandered an INNOCENT VICTIM. She was fired from the team investigating President Nixon for ethics violations. Her husband has harassed women, and committed multiple extra-marital affairs his entire life, while she defends him, enables his immorality, and, again, slanders his victims. She has lied under oath to Congress – oops, perjury – AND the American public. (Perjury is the PERVERSION of JUSTICE!) She has placed herself above the law at all levels, local, state, national and international. She and her team have ignored AND violated court orders and subpeonas. Subpeonas, court orders to ESTABLISH and SUPPORT JUSTICE. She has violated law after law covering national security, then lied, minimized, and supplanted the processes. NOT JUSTICE. She, and her husband, consider themselves to be above the law, above JUSTICE. Her ACTIONS speak LOUDER than her WORDS.

I could go on, and on, and on, on how she has PERVERTED JUSTICE throughout her entire life, and even continues to this very day.

On the other side, we have a candidate who is rough, gruff, and crass. Who speaks his mind, and isn’t afraid of offending with his words. There have been multiple accusations, even a few contrary court decisions, but never has there been a perversion of justice, at least any that have been substantiated within a court of law. We have a man who wishes to hold all Americans to the same standard, Justice. Yes, his words have been offensive, rude, crude, and often socially unacceptable, BUT his actions have been, and should be that upon which decisions are made. He has committed to upholding Justice and law for ALL Americans, AND to appoint judges and justices who will uphold the Rule of Law and JUSTICE. His positive ACTIONS speak LOUDER than his negative WORDS.

Therefore, if you value JUSTICE, if you pursue JUSTICE, then the choice is clear, or at least apparent. Do you support and vote for someone who’s ACTIONS and LIFE are examples of a lifestyle of PERVERTING JUSTICE at every level, who’s life is evidence of lie after lie, and perjury, OR do you vote AGAINST  a person with such a record. You don’t have to vote FOR the other, but you SHOULD vote FOR JUSTICE.

As one who values JUSTICE I will NEVER vote for a Clinton!

From Jews Down Under

Posted By on July 31, 2016

Here is a great article detailing the problems with the current Democratic ticket, and countering the lies and mis-perceptions regarding Donald Trump.

Arlene from Israel: Looking Up.

Aristocracy – Elitists – The Same

Posted By on July 1, 2016

Neglect of the principles of the constitution by the public functionary is a substitution of aristocracy, for a representative democracy: such a person no longer regards himself as the trustee, and agent of the people, but as a ruler whose authority is independent of the people, to whom he holds himself in no manner accountable; and he so degenerates into an usurper and a tyrant.(1) Tucker’s Blackstone

A clear and adamant warning published in 1803 by the leading Law Professor of the day. We the People of for so long been denied the voices of the past, and, thus, history now speaks to haunt us.

For years we have yielded to the voices of elite politicians, judges, lawyers who have told us what the Constitution says, means, and stands for, only recently to discover we have been misled. These elitist voices have cast aside the bonds, the chains (as described by Thomas Jefferson) of the “Constitution for the United States,” and replaced them with the assertions of wisdom, counsel, and “better judgment.” They have replaced those chains placed upon the Federal Government with those they have placed upon the People. Gone are the restrictions of the Constitution and resent are the regulations, the unwanted and unwarranted laws, the usurpation of rights, political correctness, and spineless negotiations with foreign powers. Absent are the voices of reason and strength, only to be replaced by those of appeasement and feckless abandonment of principles.

Previous to the above we find our honored professor giving us further warning and admonition:

In this species of democracy, it is further indispensably necessary to its preservation, that the constitution be fixed, that the duties of the public functionaries be defined, and limited, both as to their objects, and their duration; and that they should be at all times responsible to the people for their conduct. The constitution, being the act of the people, and the compact, according to which they have agreed with each other, that the government which they have established shall be administered, is a law to the government, and a sacred reverence, for it is an indispensible requisite in the character and conduct of every public agent. A profound obedience to the laws, and due submission to the magistrate entrusted with their execution, is equally indispensible on the part of every citizen of the commonwealth, in order to preserve the principles of this government from corruption.(2) (Emphases added)

Such wisdom and warnings are sadly missing from among those holding Public offices in modern America. We have been subjected to an unending litany of “trust me,” “re-elect me for I have experience and seniority,” and “we must elect someone with experience in government so that it will continue to work for us.” YET, these all pale and insult the voices of our Founding Fathers.

An aristocracy is that form of government in which the supreme power is vested in a small number of persons.(3)

This form of government is capable of such an approximation, and resemblance, in its external form, to a representative democracy, that the one is frequently mistaken for the other.(4)

The discriminating features of a representative democracy, as we have before observed, are the limitation of power; the frequency of elections, by the whole body of the people; the capacity of every citizen of the state to be elected to any public office, to which his talents and integrity may recommend him; and the responsibility of the public agent to the people, for his conduct. If all, or either of these characters be wanting in the constitution of the state, it is an aristocracy, though it should be founded upon the consent of the people: if either of these characters be wanting in the mode of administering the government, it then becomes an aristocracy founded upon fraud and usurpation.(5) (Emphases added)

Thus aristocracy, whatever foundation it may be raised upon, will always prove a most iniquitous and oppressive form of government.(6) (Emphasis added)

If a single germ of aristocracy be once ingrafted upon a republican government, the stock will soon cease to bear any other branches.(7) (Emphasis added)

In an aristocracy, says Montesquieu, the republic is in the body of the nobles; and the people are nothing at all.(8) (Emphasis added)

Well, it sounds a lot like what we have today in Washington. We have lost our voices as we have trusted theirs. We have become the servants to those who should be the servant. We have allowed them to tax us into oblivion, while they have fattened their purses and wallets. That we have allowed this for so long, and contrary to the voice of reason and overwhelming evidence is to our shame and humiliation.

Once again, I cite the voice and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson:

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”(9) (Emphases added)

We MUST throw off the chains which our servants have placed upon us, and return the chains to those for whom they were intended. Now, is the time. Now, is the place. And NOW all of the feckless “public functionaries” need to receive their “Walking Papers.”

(1) “NOTE B – OF THE SEVERAL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT”. Tucker’s Blackstone. Tucker’s Blackstone Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.Constitution Society, 2016. Web. 01 Jul. 2016 <>.
(2) Ibid
(3) Ibid
(4) Ibid
(5) Ibid
(6) Ibid
(7) Ibid
(8) Ibid
(9) Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

A Constitutional Sized Problem

Posted By on June 24, 2016

In this day and age of political correctness, overreaching big government, and political corruption out the ying-yang, sometimes it’s good to get a little simplicity. Most of the time, these simple things hide in plain site and most of us overlook them. When we’re looking for complex solutions, or problems we almost certainly look for the complex answer to them.

For those of us old enough to remember word problems in Math class, we can clearly remember the times we got sucked into working out a long solution to a problem when the answer was right there. Often in Facebook we find these simple problems posted, just to discover who will actually get the correct answer.

Well, the same holds true within the Constitution. In our attempts to restore, or recover the Constitutional principles in our Federal Government of the United States, we will do the same thing. Yes, I’m just as guilty. We reach into the archives of the past and read the archaic language of the writings of the Founding Fathers, “The Federalist Papers,” “The Anti-Federalist Papers,” the minutes of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the writings of James Madison, George Washington, the early Congressional Records. Okay, I am probably very unique, as I consider all of these sources to help with obtaining an original understanding of the Constitution before it was corrupted in the Twentieth Century.

One day, while reading the Constitution, probably in preparation for one of these articles, one of those little, simple thing hit me like a bolt of lightning. Could it possibly be that simple? Initially, I was very perplexed, and thought it couldn’t be that easy. So, I sat on it, just let it “stew” for a while.

We in the community of those who believe in the strict interpretation of the Constitution cite many different sources. We assert the claim that the Constitution was intended for Federal Government, to keep it small and in check to the greater power of the States. There are numerous times we refer to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, showing how those powers and rights not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved for the people and the States. We pursue the logical conclusion that the greater powers were reserved for the States.

But the Civil War changed all of that. Okay, okay, the “War of Northern Aggression.” (I really love how they address this was in Charleston, SC… “The Most Recent Unpleasantness.”) This singular event in American history did more to begin the destruction the power of the States than anything that preceded it.

“This is nice, David, but get to the point! And make it quick, before you lose my attention.”Constitution_Pg1of4_AC

In schools, colleges, universities, the halls of the political world, the meeting rooms of grassroots organizations, private conversations, and on and on, the Constitution is often mentioned. When it’s mentioned we invariably use the full phrase, “The Constitution of the United States.” But, take a closer look, there is no title or name on the original version. (This image was downloaded from The National Archives website.) We don’t see the title “Constitution of the United States” inscribed across the top. Rather, we are struck by the very large size of “We the People.” In fact, “We the People” is the largest phrase printed in the entire document. Yes, “We the People” is the most important phrase in the entire document.

Okay, I know, you all knew that, but this isn’t what I found. The very importantsimple discovery resides on the third line. I know, this image is hard to read, so, I’ll make it easy for us. Here are the words of the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Did you notice what I’m referring to? (Okay, English majors, I know, I ended the sentence with a preposition. VERY bad. Get over it.) But, again, did you see the simple item to which I’m referring?

Here let me make it obvious, “…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This is so simple, no wonder it is overlooked.

We’ve been conditioned to call it “The Constitution OF the United States,” from our earliest days that is what we hear. Constitutional “experts” use the phrase interminably, “The Constitution OF the United States.” The media repeats it by rote, “The Constitution OF the United States.” The oaths of office for every federal employee, politician and member of the Armed Forces contain the phrase “…protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Don’t get all up in a tizzy, I am well aware the last item comes FROM the Constitution. In fact, I copied it from the last paragraph of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

But, it is that phrase within the Preamble which makes a huge difference in our understanding. The simple difference between the two words “of” and “for.” “Of” is defined as, “2 a — used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation.”(1) In modern terms, we can truly understand this. I am the son of my parents, I originated from them. This is the same understanding most people have regarding the Constitution. It is the Constitution of the United States. It originated, and came from the government, BUT that is an incorrect understanding.

The word “for” is quite different:

1 a —used as a function word to indicate purpose
b —used as a function word to indicate an intended goal (2)

“For” indicates almost the exact opposite of “of” when dealing with direction of intent. “For” indicates going toward something, from something else.

In the case we are looking at here, “…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” reveals that the Constitution came from “We the People” through our States, and was given to the government. Again, the government did not give us the Constitution, rather, we gave it to it. We are the ultimate authorities as to what the Constitution says, and means, and NOT the other way around.

Now, to that sticky phrase in the oaths of office.

Once the government was established, as a result of our representatives in the State governments approving and ratifying the “Constitution FOR the United States,” the Federal Government became an entity. It had a document telling IT how to function. Now, the elected officials, employees and military became members of that governmental entity. Therefore, when I took the oath of office, I was stating that I would abide by, adhere to, and protect the integrity of the document the citizens had given to instruct me in the limits of the government. The Constitution is the government’s mission statement.

But, that does not change its point of origin, or who is its higher power. That higher power was, is and always will be “We the People” and the States which gave the government its “marching orders,” its “mission,” its “limitations,” it “restrictions,” and how it works. “We the People” are the final arbitors of the Constitution, and NOT the Congress, the Executive Branch, or the Judicial Branch. “We the People… do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR the United States.”

(1) “Of.” Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 June 2016.

(2) “For.” Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 June 2016.

Thoughts on the Oath of Office

Posted By on June 13, 2013

When I launched this site I did so with a dedicated commitment to the Oath of Office I have been required to take a number of times in my life; first upon enlisting in the US Navy (and a couple of times more there), then when I became an employee of the Department of Defense working at the Charleston Naval Shipyard. You can read more about my thoughts on the About page of this site.

Recently a friend from my Navy days posted his thoughts on the Oath on facebook. Rocko (not his real name as he has requested anonymity) and I first met while at Tech School and became great friends. While I only served six years, Rocko went on to serve over 28 years. His was an illustrious career rising through the enlisted ranks, then becoming an officer. In his post Rocko echoes my sentiments perfectly.

Rocko in honor of your service, our friendship and our shared love of the Constitution I share your thoughts:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Read this Oath and read it again. Then say it out loud! Contemplate it to try to understand it!

The very first line is no longer taken seriously (“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States”)… and many mouth the words that never make it to their heads for cognitive recognition and understanding. To enact laws that violate the Bill Of Rights and to operate a secretive intelligence operation that blatantly violates the Bill Of Rights is contrary to the Oath!

I would rather that they not take the Oath, than to break it and explain it away as giving up Liberty for Security! (Which, by the way, does not make it Okay.) By accepting this reasoning, The Lap-Dog-Media and Low-Information-Voters deserve neither. Unfortunately, soon we will all get neither!

I end with the last part… “and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” Faithfully discharging the duties of your office (including the lowest member of the Armed Forces, which have the words “Obey the orders of the Officers appointed over me” (If those Officers are faithful to the office and the Constitution) [This] cannot be performed if you fail to understand and fulfill the first line!

Thank you, again, Rocko. I will honor our friendship for years to come.

Confederated States

Posted By on May 30, 2013

While much has been said in recent years regarding the nature of the early American Republic, much has remained hidden or even unspoken. As I continue my tutelage under the writings of St. George Tucker I uncover more and more wisdom from this shining light of the first generation of Americans that has been hidden under a basket, as it were. Often, and even worse, we hear historians, politicians, lawyers and common citizens attempting to compare, or even worse define the American Republic to earlier governments.

But the American revolution has formed a new epoch in the history of civil institutions, by reducing to practice, what, before, had been supposed to exist only in the visionary speculations of theoretical writers …. The world, for the first time since the annals of its inhabitants began, saw an original written compact formed by the free and deliberate voices of individuals disposed to unite in the same social bonds; thus exhibiting a political phenomenon unknown to former ages. (Note A, Tucker’s Blackstone)

How often have we compared our governmental form, that originally constructed within the Constitution with say the Roman Republic or Greece? How often have we heard that democracies only survive for two hundred years? How often have I, we heard others attempt to apply historic lessons from other nations to our own?

For me, the above reveal the lack of understanding of those listening to me speak, or attempting to establish their knowledge of history. On one hand I am provided an opportunity to educate and provide a better understanding, while on the other I am confronting an individual who professes, yet lack it.

We must understand that the American Constitution established something “unknown to former ages.” This type of government never, and I repeat never existed or was practiced in any nation in the world. There are those who would cite Rome and Greece, but again it must be understood that our founders, and the framers of the Constitution rejected these patterns, and eventually only incorporated a name, “Senate,” from either of these. The American Senate bears no resemblance to that of Rome. Our founders saw these two examples as wholly inadequate for a society of free men.

The foundations of the American States were laid in their respective colonial charters: with the revolution they ceased to be colonies, and became independent and sovereign republics, under a democratic form of government. (Note B, Section III, Tucker’s Blackstone)

What an interesting comment by Mr. Tucker. The “colonies… became independent and sovereign republics,” that is nations. The new nation-states of the North American continent joined together for common defense, and with a common purpose, to be free of the domination and tyranny of Great Britain.

There are those who will attempt to declare these states eventually subjugated themselves to the new Federal government, but these are only the voices of the present and not the past. There is not a single solitary voice among the first generations of Americans who would have espoused this position, in the North or South. And herein lies the basis of my statements in the past regarding how we cannot find an example of it being stated that the Federal government was sovereign.

Blackstone in his commentary (Vol. 1 page 49) writes:

By the sovereign power, is meant the making of laws; and wherever that power resides, all others must conform to and be directed by it, whatever appearance the outward form and administration of justice may put on.

This is the current model and function of the American government, but it is in contradistinction to that provided by the founders. Let’s go back to Tucker:

…the sovereignty of the people, and the responsibility of their servants are principles fundamentally, and unequivocally, established; in which the powers of the several branches of government are defined, and the excess of them, as well in the legislature, as in the other branches, finds limits, which cannot be transgressed without offending against that greater power from whom all authority, among us, is derived; to wit, the PEOPLE. (Note A, Tucker’s Blackstone)

Thus, we see the Federal government is limited in what it can and cannot do by the definition of powers and limitations provided within the Constitution, and as a result the Federal government has no sovereignty since it must answer to the true sovereigns of the land. True sovereignty requires the ability to legislate on any subject without restraint. Further, Tucker continues;

As these powers, on the one hand, are extended to certain objects, as to lay and collect taxes, duties, & on the other they are clearly limited and restrained; as that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state …. nor any preference given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another, &c.These, and several others, are objects to which the power of the legislature does not extend… (Note A, Tucker’s Blackstone)

But most telling is what Tucker writes as he continues the above:

…and should congress be so unwise as to pass an act contrary to these restrictions, the other powers of the state are not bound to obey the legislative power in the execution of their several functions, as our author expresses it: but the very reverse is their duty, being sworn to support the constitution, which unless they do in opposition to such encroachments, the constitution would indeed be at an end. (Note A, Tucker’s Blackstone)  Emphasis added

Thus the power and authority of the Federal government is constrained by the States and the people. Thus we see from Tucker that the States were “independent and sovereign republics and the people were the “greater power from whom all authority… is derived.” The Federal government was intended to only be a functionary of the States and the people with very specific, defined and limited powers.

Finally, Tucker’s closing paragraph to Note A is probably the most telling. I conclude with this paragraph and only add some bolding to emphasize the above statements:

Here then we must resort to a distinction which the institution and nature of our government has introduced into the western hemisphere; which, however, can only obtain in governments where power is not usurped but delegated, and where authority is a trust and not a right …. nor can it ever be truly ascertained where there is not a written constitution to resort to. A distinction, nevertheless, which certainly does exist between the indefinite and unlimited power of the people, in whom the sovereignty of these states, ultimately, substantially, and unquestionably resides, and the definite powers of the congress and state legislatures, which are severally limited to certain and determinate objects, being no more than emanations from the former, where, and where only, that legislative essence which constitutes sovereignty can be found.


Former President Protection

Posted By on May 23, 2013

Okay everyone I just had a crazy question come to mind from nowhere, and I need your help.

Has there ever been a threat against a former president of the United States, let alone an assassination attempt? For my part I cannot think of a single reported one. Additionally, this protection is extended to the spouses of the former president for their entire lifetimes, AND their children until age 16. Why? Most importantly, we will never know the cost of this service as they are kept secret.

With no known threat OR attempt is this simply a means of extending the imperial presidency?

Come on people make your comments. Am I missing something here?

Commentary on British Government from 1803

Posted By on May 22, 2013

Posts comparing the modern US Congress and the Parliament of the 1700’s continue to be the most frequently visited posts on this site. What drives this interest? What is compelling search after search attracting people to this site? I am honored and intrigued to discover that when I enter the search “congress and parliament of the 1700” in Google and Bing the top two returns are two of the articles I’ve written.

Note: The articles available online here are; “Congress & Parliament of the 1700’s”, “More on Congress and Parliament of the 1700’s” and “The English Government of the 1700’s”.

There is a plethora of information available on the British government, and its make up during the Revolutionary and early Constitutional periods. Yet, sadly, still the American public in general remains woefully ignorant of the subject. This ignorance is then translated into a lack of a more complete understanding of the causes of the American War for Independence (1775-1783). This lack of understanding translates into the often repeated maxim of American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” So, our lack of understanding and knowledge of our past is causing us to repeat the past by allowing our government to become the very incarnation of that which was rejected in the Revolution.

I have found a source who quotes a book written by James Mackintosh, a British citizen, in 1791. The following excerpt is used by permission and can be found online at Tucker’s Commentary on Blackstone, Note B. And followed up with some of Tucker’s commentary:

“It is perhaps susceptible of proof,” says this nervous writer, “that these governments of balance and control have never existed but in the visions of theorists. The fairest example will be the constitution of England. If it can be proved that the two members of the legislature who pretend to control each other are ruled by the same class of men, the control must be granted to be imaginary. That opposition of interest which is supposed to preclude all conspiracy against the people can no longer exist. That this is the state of England, the most superficial observation must evince. The great proprietors, tided and untitled, possess the whole force of both houses of parliament, that is not immediately dependent on the crown. The peers have a great influence in the house of commons. All political parties are formed by a confederacy of the members of both houses. The court party by the influence of the crown, acting equally in both, supported by a part of the independent aristocracy: The opposition by the remainder of the aristocracy, whether commoners, or lords. Here is every symptom of collusion: no vestige of control. The only case where it could arise, is where the interest of the peerage, is distinct from that of the other great proprietors.”

“Who can, without indignation,” adds the same writer, “hear the house of commons of England called a popular representative? A more insolent and preposterous abuse of language is not to be found in the vocabulary of tyrants. The criterion that distinguishes laws from dictates, freedom from servitude, rightful government from usurpation, the law being an expression of the general will is wanting. This is the grievance which the admirers of the revolution in 1688, desire to remedy according to its principles. This is that perennial source of corruption, which has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. If the general interest is not the object of the government, it is, it must be, because the general will does not govern. We are boldly challenged to produce our proofs: our complaints are asserted to be chimerical, and the excellence of our government is inferred from its beneficial effects. Most unfortunately for us, most unfortunately for our country, these proofs are too ready, and too numerous. We find them in that monumental debt, the bequest of wasteful, and profligate wars, which wrings from the peasant something of his hard-earned pittance; which already has punished the industry of the useful and upright manufacturer, by robbing him of the asylum of his house, and the judgment of his peers: to which the madness of political quixotism [sic] adds a million for every farthing that the pomp of ministerial empyricism [sic] pays; and which menaces our children with convulsions and calamities, of which no age has seen the parallel. We find them in the bloody roll of persecuting statutes that are still suffered to stain our code; a list so execrable, that were there no monument to be preserved of what England was in the eighteenth century, but her statute-book, she might be deemed still plunged in the deepest gloom of superstitious barbarism. We find them in the ignominious exclusion of great bodies of our fellow citizens from political trusts, by tests which reward falsehood, and punish probity; which profane the rites of the religion they pretend to guard, and usurp the dominion of the God, they profess to revere. We find them in the growing corruptions of those who administer the government, in the venality of a house of commons which has become only a cumbrous and expensive chamber for registering ministerial edicts …. in the increase of a nobility arrived to a degradation, by the profusion and prostitution of honours [sic], which the most zealous partizans [sic] of democracy would have spared them. We find them, above all, in the rapid progress which has been made to silence the great organ of public opinion, the Press, which is the true control on ministers and parliaments, who might else, with impunity, trample on the impotent formalities, that form the pretended bulwark of our freedom …. The mutual control, the well-poised balance of the several members of our legislature, are the visions of theoretical, or the pretexts of practical politicians. It is a government not of check, but of conspiracy …. a conspiracy which can only be repressed by the energy of popular opinion.”

If this be a true picture of the government of Great Britain (and whether it is or not, I shall leave it to others to enquire [sic] and determine,) the epoch can not [sic] be far distant, which Judge Blackstone hints at in the introduction to his commentaries. If ever it should happen” says that enlightened author “that the independence of any one of the three branches of the legislature should be lost, or that it should become subservient to the views of either of the other two, there would soon be an end of the constitution.” In which case, according to Sir Matthew Hale, the subjects of that kingdom are left without all manner of remedy.

Such, then, being the history of the British constitution, the most perfect model of these mixt governments, (as agreed on all hands by their admirers, and advocates,) that the world ever saw, we may apply to them generally, the observations of an excellent politician of the last century. “If all the parts of the state do not with their utmost power promote the public good; if the prince has other aims than the safety and welfare of his country; if such as represent the people do not preserve their courage and integrity; if the nation’s treasure is wasted; if ministers are allowed to undermine the constitution with impunity; if judges are suffered to pervert justice, and wrest the law; then is a mixed government the greatest tyranny in the world: it is tyranny established by law; and the people are bound in fetters of their own making. A tyranny that governs by the sword, has few friends but men of the sword; but a legal tyranny (where the people are only called to confirm iniquity with their own voices) has on its side the rich, the timid, the lazy, those that know law, and get by it, ambitious churchmen, and all whose livelihood depends upon the quiet posture of affairs: and the persons here described compose the influencing part of most nations; so that such a tyranny is hardly to be shaken off.”

Related Article Links:

Congress & Parliament of the 1700’s
The English Government of the 1700’s
More on Congress and Parliament of the 1700’s
Commentary on British Government from 1803

%d bloggers like this: