My free book: Liberation Day: Our Nation Empowered by the Constitution

[EricMartin]

I absolutely agree that states should be able to have immigration policies, that is even referenced in A1S9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

But I believe that it is also a necessary and intended federal power, historically the states have had loose or non-existent intrastate immigration policies which is generally a good and desirable thing but if the federal government isn't allowed to have an immigration policy then the state with the loosest immigration policy will serve as a gateway and force its policy on all the others, the only alternative would be for the states to make harsh intrastate immigration policies which would reduce the efficiency of interstate commerce and possibly result in the breakup of the union.


Here are some relevant quotes:

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)

In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Jefferson reflects:

• "It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possi- ble in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.

• "Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of abso- lute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emi- grants." (3)

Jefferson warns, nearly prophetically:

• "They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an un- bounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, in- coherent, distracted mass." (4)

There is theory; and then there is reality. Jefferson was schooled in both. He knew that, to every liberal law, there were some reasonable limits.
We need artisans, he admitted, but not enemies. We want true freedom seekers to come, but without "extraordinary encouragements." (5)
What would Thomas Jefferson, therefore, think of an immigration policy today that, with flashing lights invites the non-working masses of the world to come--to come from countries that hate us, to a feast of "free" food, "free" health care, "free" education, "free" social security benefits, and free and instant voter registration cards? It is hard to see Jefferson calling it anything but extraordinarily unwise, and extraordinarily rev- olutionary. Jefferson would have proposed something better--a policy liberal in its ex- tension of the blessings of liberty to those who desired it, and conservative in its eco- nomic and political common sense.
Footnotes:
1. Bergh, Albert Ellery, Editor. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Volume 3, p. 338.
2. Ibid., pgs. 338-339.
3. Bergh, Volume 2, p. 120.
4. Ibid., p. 121. 5. Ibid.



More at: http://proconservative.net/PCVol5Is2...security.shtml



And from Ron Paul:

Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders....And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq. Ron Paul


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

You're starting to sway me to make me think I made a mistake on this one. I may have. The book is not perfect, but I would prefer more research before changing this point.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Good point. I think invasion is referring to military invasion.

The line between a military invasion and a civilian invasion is an arbitrary creation of modern civilization, civilian invasions are potential existential threats when combined with birthright citizenship and the fact that we are a republic ruled by voters. (not to mention the possibility of an armed uprising like how Mexico lost Texas)

 

[EricMartin]

You are right but your book is about what a President could do by executive order based on things being unconstitutional, in order to take that approach to get around congress you would need an amendment.

Gotcha, yes... or a law passed by Congress.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You're starting to sway me to make me think I made a mistake on this one. I may have. The book is not perfect, but I would prefer more research before changing this point.

Fair enough.

 

[EricMartin]

Money is a good and control of the companies can be thought of as a good and the information that ownership gives the foreigners access to is also a good.

But the question is, what did the founders think of as a good?

 

[Swordsmyth]

I know, but not in conjunction with general commerce, only for the "post".

Could not the citizens be allowed to use the "Post Roads" after they were built for the Post Office?
I think almost any road could be justified as a "Post Road" and I also think that it was mistake to grant Congress the power to build "Post Roads", the founders never used that power because it wasn't necessary.

 

[Swordsmyth]

But the question is, what did the founders think of as a good?

I would be interested to find out if they ever discussed the question.
I think they would have considered money a good since it was gold and silver in their time.

If they never discussed what was a good and what wasn't then aren't we under the necessity of making that determination ourselves?

 

[EricMartin]

Could not the citizens be allowed to use the "Post Roads" after they were built for the Post Office?
I think almost any road could be justified as a "Post Road" and I also think that it was mistake to grant Congress the power to build "Post Roads", the founders never used that power because it wasn't necessary.

Perhaps. Or we could argue that the founders did not use it and years later when Congress tried to use it people said it was unconstitutional, at least at first. Establishing post roads could be argued as a way to establish postal routes, and not actually build roads.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Perhaps. Or we could argue that the founders did not use it and years later when Congress tried to use it people said it was unconstitutional, at least at first. Establishing post roads could be argued as a way to establish postal routes, and not actually build roads.

True, establishing Post Offices is potentially different than "building needful buildings" which allows their construction, the classic country store post office being an example of establishing an office without building it.

Madison certainly didn't believe that the federal government had the power to build roads as the quote in your book shows.

 

[EricMartin]

I would be interested to find out if they ever discussed the question.
I think they would have considered money a good since it was gold and silver in their time.

If they never discussed what was a good and what wasn't then aren't we under the necessity of making that determination ourselves?

I don't think we need to make the determination for ourselves. I think we need to determine what their determination was, if possible.

 

[EricMartin]

True, establishing Post Offices is potentially different than "building needful buildings" which allows their construction, the classic country store post office being an example of establishing an office without building it.

Madison certainly didn't believe that the federal government had the power to build roads as the quote in your book shows.

Nice reference!

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't think we need to make the determination for ourselves. I think we need to determine what their determination was, if possible.

That would be best but I said "IF they never discussed [it]", perhaps there was a common law legal definition that was accepted at the time that we could use to determine the question.

 

[EricMartin]

That would be best but I said "IF they never discussed [it]", perhaps there was a common law legal definition that was accepted at the time that we could use to determine the question.

Yup, I think that would be the next best route.

 

[oyarde]

We call the FACs (forward air controller). Fighter pilots assigned with ground units because of their knowledge of capabilities. An assignment many try to avoid.

I feel a little bad now , I thought that FAC guy was there to make my coffee .

 

[Danke]

I feel a little bad now , I thought that FAC guy was there to make my coffee .

Ya, officers are known to do that for the grunts.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Ya, officers are known to do that for the grunts.

I think Oyarde assumes that about everyone.

 

[osan]

I wrote this book, and I'd love to hear your questions and comments. Ron Paul (through a friend, who told me that I should check him out) got me into the liberty movement and on the libertarian path. I hope Dr. Paul would agree with all of this book.


Here's where you can get it for free (at least for now):


https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/900010


It's available as a pdf, epub, mobi (Kindle), and as an online version.


The book contains a concrete plan to restore the Constitution in the United States according to the founders' original intent. It also contains the justification for that plan. You can read the first 3 chapters to get much of the heart of the book. Also, you can read the table of contents to see the major points of the concrete plan. If you love reading, feel free to read the whole thing!


Thank you, Eric Martin

OK, I've started and immediately came to the old Sam Adams quote:

“It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
―Samuel Adams

I'm on page one and it may take me 41.3 years to finish, as I read slowly, but I thought I would point out for the sake of conversation and perhaps some clarity that an equally true version of that quote could go like this:

“It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of tyranny and fear in the minds of men.”
―Samuel Adams

The latter is precisely what Theye and their useful idiots have been doing. Lately, BLM and Antifa come to mind, along with the rest of the "leftist" progressive weaklings who have been praying to the god of tyranny their entire lives. They may be despicable for their cowardice, ignorance, and blind avarice, but we must give credit even unto such creatures when they show virtue, however little and misapplied it may be: they get out there and ACT. They act abhorrently, but they act, which is a whole lot more than most of the rest of us do. And that is why they stand a good chance of leading those for whom they serve as useful idiots to eventual victory over the vast remainder. It's a sad thought, but there you have it. Those who would lord over you are winning in a big way as the rest of us sit idly, moaning about it while doing nothing of substance to stop it.

Humans.



Update:

How can these legislators expect us to follow the rules that they (or their special interests and career regulators) write when they are not following their law, the U.S. Constitution?

Because when they violate, we sit idly by and allow it. Words have come to mean nearly nothing in terms of acting as levers against official political vermin. Nor, in the absence of such effect, do we lynch them from street lamps. Therefore, there are no effective consequences for their felonious acts. Given this, what incentive have Theye to behave in accord with the Constitution? Answer: there is none and so here we find ourselves. No rocket surgery there.



Update:

The Bill of Rights is a set of prohibitions on the federal government, but those prohibitions are merely unnecessary reiterations of the prohibitions on the federal government that are already built into the Constitution.

Ooooo... in a world of better men, I might agree, but not in this one. The mean human being is not in fact a human being but a mere simulacrum - a beast in human clothing. He is imbued through deep marination with what I have come to call The Four Necessities, which abbreviate to the convenient acronym "FAIL": Fear, Avarice, Ignorance, Lassitude.

Not to piss on your Constitutional parade, but the document is a cluster copulation of semantic and structural insufficiency. It was written for FREE men and not for those of lesser cloth. Sadly, America is now people with a strong majority of the latter and very few of the former. I might argue that America is a land with vanishingly few free men, but that's another discussion entirely.

The average man is a beast whose mental orientation comports strongly with Bastiat's quote on page 1. That is observable truth that no man of honesty and integrity may credibly deny, barring brain lesions or some other deep organic cognitive impairment. Because of this, a constitution, if we must insist on having such a document for free men - the apparent necessity of which, I will point out, pretty well proves my assertions about the nature of mean humanity - it must be far better conceived and executed than that under which we currently suffer, and I mean suffer.

As I have mentioned in this forum more than once in the past, I wrote such a constitution about 30 years ago as an academic exercise to see whether I could do it. I could and I did and it vastly outstrips what we now have in terms of structure, semantic clarity, and overall utility in terms of the reasons for which such a document ostensibly is contrived: the protection and guaranty of the rights of free men against the predations, violations, and other trespasses of their fellows.

And in so doing, my contrivances taught me a lesson I shall never forsake: no document can protect a man, for it is naught but words on paper. Without the rightful mind, a man is just another beast, immune to the higher reasoning of men, and uncaring that it is so. The righteously free man has little to no protection against the mob of mean men who, regardless of intentions good or nefarious, would strip a man of his innate freedoms and feed him to the wolves for no other reason than he has asserted his valid claims to life in apparent violation of the broader and perhaps even tacit edict that he "share" that which is rightly his with his "brothers".

We live in a world lousy with mental decay and filth where the majority is quite content to see men with guns vent their rage upon those who serve as reminders to that majority of just how less-than they are; what cowards; what grasping children; what ignorants; what loafers. The mean man hates the superior man precisely because the latter serves as the sorest reminder to the former of just what a low and vile creature is; something less than quite human.

In case you were wondering about my own Frankenstein's Monster, my constitution was constructed of two parts which I called the Nucleus and the Orbit. The Nucleus was immutable, containing the principles of proper human relations and the various derivatives used as the basis of authority. It would include a dictionary of all terms used therein, as well as the ENTIRE body of Law (note the capitalization, vis-a-vis "law"), which was VERY small. It included the fundamental criteria that must be satisfied in order to determine whether an act is a crime. Because none of those things can conceivably change with time and circumstance, they are sacrosanct and immutable. This, of course, would lead many to freak out because they are not free men, but something else. A truly free man accepts the risks of freedom, which can be high - even terminally so. Lesser men, whom I call Weakmen, seek to hedge their bets by placing constraints and other limitations and exceptions upon actual, proper human freedom. The worst of the beasts are those who most closely simulate Freemen and therefore hold the unearned credibility of the Freeman and are thereby so often successful in gaining the acceptance of their corruptions of the landscape of true liberty by the vast legions of Weakmen. THAT is the precise reason for declaring the Nucleus untouchable, because men will by small degrees alter what is immutably correct to better serve their corrupted ends.

The Orbit contained all that was of a changeable nature, with the proviso that nothing therein could in any way violate the protections of the Nucleus, any such violation being null, void, without force of Law, and authorizing any Freeman to take any steps he deems fit to protect himself from trespass by anyone attempting to foist or otherwise enforce such invalid mandates upon him, up to and including killing every individual so acting against him.

Orbital law, or "statute" as I would prefer to label it for the purposes of distinguishing it from Law, might treat things of a privileged nature such as the formation of corporations, again were we to insist on continuing to employ such legal fictions. The way I see it, if one seeks to enjoy some special privilege, and I strongly question the validity of such things, they may also be required to toe a line concomitant with such. If, for example, you choose the protections of the "corporate veil", you may be required to waive certain other basic rights under what might be very specific circumstances, such as the prima facie case of criminal negligence such that your corporate right to privacy is thereby annulled by order of a judge, whose ass would be on the line in the case he were to issue such an order without valid basis.

Under my constitution, "government" would quake in its boots in minute by minute fashion at the very thought of violating the sovereign rights of Freemen with treble sentencing and damages compared with the same crimes committed by non-governmental individuals. There would be no qualified immunities for anyone, at any time, for any reason. You violate, you face the music, circumstance notwithstanding such as "we were at war". If you want to presume to govern, you bear all the attendant risks. That alone would keep "government" tiny. It would keep corruption low because ANY many would be empowered to hold any government official accountable, with the understanding that any false charge brought against a government official would earn one the same treble penalties.

Yes sir, under my constitution, the nation would be a far quieter and more prosperous place, all the while those committing violations of trespass upon their fellows being held their feet to the fire. Conditions would be such that it would so deeply behoove all men to adopt a posture of great caution and circumspection where his treatment of others was concerned. Mannerliness would rapidly become abidingly fashionable and most men would not dare bring injury of any palpable form to his fellows.

That constitution and the social order it would engender might succeed because I believe there are enough people of such cloth to make it so, but there are no guarantees. It could go all wildly wrong, but those are the risks one must accept if he is serious about breaking free from the bonds of pretty slavery, which is the worst form of that vile institution and the one into which Americans appear to be so hopelessly locked.

Update:

That growth of debt is not sustainable,

Actually, it is. By all appearances, it is indefinitely sustainable so long as certain conditions hold.

 

[EricMartin]

Actually, it is. By all appearances, it is indefinitely sustainable so long as certain conditions hold.

Sorry, I still need to check all of this out, but this immediately stood out to me. The growth rate is just over 8%, compounded annually. I don't see how that's possibly sustainable without massive inflation or a default on the debt, as long as economic growth plus inflation combined are less than 8%. That compounds quickly and in not too long we'll be an economy with a debt twice the size of our yearly economic output. Soon enough 3, 4, 5, 10x the size of our economy. Do you have a reason that this is sustainable? I think with our current conditions holding we simply won't have enough money to pay off even the interest on our debt in decades at longest.

 

[osan]

Sorry, I still need to check all of this out, but this immediately stood out to me. The growth rate is just over 8%, compounded annually. I don't see how that's possibly sustainable without massive inflation or a default on the debt, as long as economic growth plus inflation combined are less than 8%. That compounds quickly and in not too long we'll be an economy with a debt twice the size of our yearly economic output. Soon enough 3, 4, 5, 10x the size of our economy. Do you have a reason that this is sustainable? I think with our current conditions holding we simply won't have enough money to pay off even the interest on our debt in decades at longest.

Inflation is the bit that makes it sustainable. Were there no inflation, naturally it would come crashing down once REAL and ACTUAL money ran out. This bullshit currency, ones and zeros resident on a disk somewhere, is what makes the current system infinitely sustainable in principle. Issue more money, inflate prices. Rinse and repeat. So long as conditions hold sufficiently, one may inflate his way to infinity and beyond with no overly negative impact on economies and so forth. People with savings, of course, will likely take it in the neck in the absence of interest dividends commensurate with inflation.

So long as purchasing power remains within some vaguely defined ballpark, the system trudges on, intact.

This is what electronic, debt-instrument currency has brought to our lives.

 

[pcosmar]

But was the original intent of the founders' to build roads for postal service?

NO,,, and None of the original and still recognized post roads were build by the Government.

They were roads build by the people,, from farm to market..

They established such roads as Post Roads.. roads already in existance... and later as they came to be. (expansion)

It was not until after the invention of the automobile that ownership of roads was usurped by governments.