Notes on the U. S. Constitution

 

The U.S. Constitution is a Rival Covenant

Although it was the stated intent of the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to merely amend the existing Articles of Confederation, under which the Christian states were united following the War for Independence, the ratification of the Constitution of the United States two years later completely altered the very nature of the American civil structure:

The framers of the Constitution ignored the purposes for which they were delegated; they acted without any authority whatever; and the document, which the warring factions finally evolved from their quarrels and dissensions, was revolutionary....

"Had the idea of a total change [in government] been stated," asserts the trustworthy Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, "probably no state would have appointed members to the Convention.... Probably not one man in ten thousand in the United States... had an idea that the old ship was to be destroyed. Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, Vol. I, pp. 323-325.

The document which was birthed by the Convention was indeed 3revolutionary,2 for it scuttled the "old ship" of a civil covenant with Jesus Christ and replaced it with the "secular republic" dreamt of by the apostate James Madison. (Reference: Robert A. Rutland, article: "James Madison's Dream: A Secular Rqpublic, " Free Inquiry, September 1983, pp. 8, 11). This paradigm shift away from Christianity is glaringly apparent in Article VI, Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In the historical context of the era, the "religious Test" cannot be understood as referring to anything other than the Christian oaths required by the state constitutions. The framers of the Constitution, most of whom were members of the occult religion of Freemasonry who had, in its Lodges, sworn self-maledictory oaths to overthrow Christianity, were well aware of the implications of their actions. A national emergency was said to have been caused by the weaknesses of the existing system under the Articles, and the exaggerated, if not contrived, crisis culminated in the design of a more "energetic government" behind the closed doors of the Convention–a government in which explicit allegiance to Jesus Christ was relegated to the garbage heap of past 'intolerance." In one fell swoop, the public covenant which the early Americans had made with the True and Living God was swept away and was replaced by an apostate covenant with the "any god" of "religious neutrality." Such was the dawning of a Novus Ordo Seclorum–-a New World Order based upon the sovereignty of man's own reason over the revelation of God in His Word.

This crafty "bait and switch' game did not go entirely unnoticed by some of the more servant patriots of that day. At the North Carolina ratifying convention, Henry Abbot complained:

[I]f there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans [Muslims] might obtain offices among us, and...the Senators and Representatives might all be pagans. Henry Abbot, quoted by Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption Federal Constitution Vol. IV, p. 192.

SOURCE: The Christian Jural Society News, Issue the Twenty-ninth, pages 13-14.

--------------------

"The articles of confederation which constituted the existing organic law of the federal union provided that they might be amended only with consent of all the states. Art. Confed., art. XIII. The act of establishing the constitution, therefore, was revolutionary in character. Cooley Const. L. (3d ed.) 15. The binding force of the constitution rests, not on its being the legitimate successor to the articles of confederation&Mac220;&Mac220;which it is not&Mac220;&Mac220;but on its adoption by the people of the states in the exercise of their primary and inherent right, through revolution, if necessary, to ordain and establish their own institutions. Federalist No. 43 (Madison)." 12 C.J.S. Constitutional Law, Sec. 11, p. 680.

3Centralized political authority had been the bulwark of the economic and political aristocracy of the colonies. Hence those conservatives who took part in initiating the Revolution defended the theoretical foundations of their position: authority derived from the king. They pleaded the necessity of a supreme legislature over the colonies in 1774; the Galloway plan was an expression of this desire. When independence became a fact, they were forced to accept the theoretical foundation of the Revolution, the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, which at the time was understood to be the people organized as states, not the people organized in a nation known as the ŒUnited States.1 But while they paid lip service to this theory, they accepted neither its principles nor its implications. Instead they cleverly used the theory to justify the creation of a supreme authority, by arguing that the Revolution was the work of all the people of the United States. The argument was ineffective in 1776, but in 1787 the conservatives used the theory most subtly to abolish in fact what they upheld in theory.2 Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution 1774-1781 (University of Wisconsin Press, 1940), p. 165.

The United States, known until 1781 as 3The Congress,2 under the Articles of Confederation officially called 3The United States in Congress Assembled,2 and under the federal Constitution, 3The United States of America,2 has always had a 3president.2 [* * *] Since these presidents exercised the first glimmerings of executive power under the central government, and since six presidents preceded the actual formation of executive departments, their role foreshadowed, however dimly, the presidency as we now know it under a federal Constitution which assume a separation of powers unknown to the Congress of the pre-Confederation or Confederation years. Richard B. Morris, The Forging of the Union, 1781-1789 (Harper & Row, Pub., 1987), p. 99.

James Wilson so testified in the Convention of 1787, where he argued that the Continental Congress had constituted a single state and that the interests of individual states had been unknown, but had crept in only after the formation of the confederation. 3The original draft of confederation,2 he said, 3was drawn on the first idea [of Congress as a single state] and the draft concluded on how different!2 (Original Brackets.) Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation: An interpretation of the social-constitutional history of the Amercian Revolution 1774-1781 (The University of Wisconsin Press, 1976), p. 129.

3The chief object of the Union and of the revision of the Articles of Confederation which gave us our present federal Constitution was undoubtedly commercial regulation.2 Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (Columbia University Press, 1909), p. 185.

3Who, then, are those persons of whom the United States as body politic consists, and who constitute its members? Clearly they must be either the States in their corporate capacity, i.e., artificial and legal persons, or citizens of all the States in their aggregate; and it is not difficult to see that they are the former. Indeed, the latter do not form a political unit for any purpose. The citizens of each State form the body politic of that State, and the States form the body politic of the United States. The latter, therefore, consisted at first of the original thirteen States, just as the Confederation did . . .2 C.C. Langdell, The Status of Our New Territories, 12 Harv.L.Rev., No. 6, 365, 369 (1899).

Constitution for the United States of America- At the proper place, pgs 430-431, Journal of the Senate, 2nd Ses., 35th Congress; Dec- 3, 1860, show the adjournment sine die of Congress an March 28, 1861.

SEE: The Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Being the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress Begun and Held at the City of Washington, December 3, 1860, in the Eighty Fifth Year of the Independence of the United States, Published at Washington: by George W. Bowman, Senate Printer, 1860-61.

--Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

 

 

"While treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, they reach that status only if their provisions are self-executing. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 6." Camacho v. Rogers, 199 F.Supp. 155 (1961)

SELF-EXECUTING. - Black's 3rd

 

Quotes:

While the machinery of law enforcement and indeed the nature of crime itself have changed dramatically since the Fourth Amendment became part of the Nation's fundamental law in 1791, what the Framers understood then remains true today - that the task of combating crime and convicting the guilty will in every era seem of such critical and pressing concern that we may be lured by the temptations of expediency into forsaking our commitment to protecting individual liberty and privacy.
"UNITED STATES v. LEON, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)", http://laws.findlaw.com/us/468/897.html by Justice Brennan