The diametrically opposed factions in this eternal struggle are “We the People” guided by the
divinely inspired principle “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Versus a
“Black Nobility” , a power hungry elite and their indoctrinated minions who believe that the peoples (In the elites terms “The great unwashed”) rights are only those that are specifically enumerated by such elite. These two skeins of thought are exemplified by the American Revolution and subsequent Constitution for the former, in contradistinction to the French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic (Civil) codifications of Law for the latter. The United States Constitution is the only surviving example of the former while the constitutions of most other major countries (including the United Nations) owe their ideological history to the later. Even the UK has lost the spirit of the Magna Charta into a morass of Fabian Socialism.
Ronald Reagan most eloquently espoused this concept in his 1964 speech
“A time for Choosing” as America being the “Last Stand on Earth”. I remember once reading a story of a man who cashed in everything in the late 1920’s and sought to escape the insanity and destitution of 1930’s America to settle in a then idyllic South Seas Island….
Guadalcanal. This is America, this is the last stand, you can run but you can’t hide.
In the case of Canada’s Constitution, the final conversion from a Magna Charta restrained constitutional monarchy to civil law inspired top down control was engineered by Maoist “Lucky” Pierre Trudeau under the guise of
“Repatriation” in 1982; despite that fact activists Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, had been “Liberally” reinterpreting the divisions of power between the provinces and the federal government since the country was first formed in 1867. Being appointed by the federal government these judges political bias was so tilted in favor of federal largess that more often than naught the final arbiters of these disputes, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the House of Lords in London, would overturn the Federal Judges decisions in favor of the provinces. The Liberal Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King was so incensed over the curtailment of the expansion of Federal Powers that he convinced the Canadian Parliament to pass legislation in June of 1949 to cancel all forms of appeals to the Privy Council. The main underlying reason for this change was the fear that the
ultra vires Taxation Rental Agreements the Federal Government of Canada was foisting on the Provinces would have never passed muster with the Privy Council.
(As a side note by the time the
"Charolottetown Accord" was attempted to be foisted on the Canadian public 7 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court had been appointed by “Lucky” Pierre; fortunately the public soundly rejected the accord in a referendum)
One contest of that Federal largess was eventually heard in 1950 in front of the Supreme court of Canada as
“The Lord Nelson (hotel) case” The core principle of the final judgment was an ancient Latin Legal Maxim
Delegatus Non Potest Delegare - A person to whom an authority or decision-making power has been delegated to from a higher source, cannot, in turn, delegate again to another, unless the original delegation explicitly authorized it. As I will discuss later in this article it has extreme importance to the current situation, not only with the Supreme Court of the USA hearing the “Obamacare” case, but also the recent draconian carbon rulings out of the EPA over Coal Fired Power Plants. If one is interested in learning more about the unconstitutional aspects of federal taxation power in Canada and the role the courts played they should read
“Fraud Deception and Manipulation” by Robert Marquis.
Federal Judges and Crown Prosecutors in Canada are legendary in their abuse of our common (with the USA) constitutional heritage as represented by the Magna Charta. I was in attendance at a court case in Canada in the mid '90s where the defendant petitioned the court for a “Trail by Jury” citing the Magna Charta as precedence. Not only did the Judge roll his eyes at the mention of the Magna Charta, but the Crown Prosecutor (a female honors graduate of the University of Ottawa) objected stating “The Magna Charta is just and old document” and “Juries are not valid as people do not understand the Law”. Clearly she had been well indoctrinated by her alma mater and had never read an essay by Lysander Spooner on
“Trial by Jury” The Canadian Judiciary and “The Crown” have contorted ancient well defined words with a verbal alacrity that would make Nadia Comaneci blush with envy. For example, the world “Exclusive” in the Canadian Constitution (I use the word constitution loosely) no longer means baring all others but has been liberally interpreted to mean some percentage sharing of jurisdiction over what were historically referred to as “Water Tight Compartments” segregating Federal and Provincial powers in Canada. Likewise they have invented the term “Spending Powers” meaning that if the federal government wanted to spend money (read bribe provincial politicians and Governments) inside the provinces in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction they were given Carte Blanche permission to do so by the courts.
One has only to revisit the
“Cornhusker Kickback” & “Louisiana Purchase” to see how the power to spend money has corrupted the political integrity of the USA.
Getting back to
Delegatus Non Potest Delegare it could be easily compared to the time little Johnny loaned little Billy his bicycle for the weekend by saying “Billy I am gone for the weekend and you can use my bicycle” If Billy let others in the neighborhood use the bike he violated that ancient Latin Maxim. In the American Constitution the people’s personal endowment from their creator of “certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” can never be transferred or loaned. Note the definition of unalienable rights means
“rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person “We the people” were the one time recipients of “Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness” we are prohibited from delegating any of that authority to anyone and nor can it be usurped by others!
The framers of the Trinity of documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill or Rights and all three should considered in unison when determining what power has been delegated to and withheld from the federal government) that defined the American Republic were not only aware of this ancient Legal Maxim, but were also painfully aware of the abuse and usurpation of power by the King and Parliament.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
Article I
Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Article III
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
It should be noted that the Constitution was not a purely delegatory document as it not only specified the powers conferred onto the Federal Government, but put in many clauses stating what the federal Government and in a few cases the Stages could not do. Nor was it an open ended document as confirmed during the first ten amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights; the most telling of these are Amendments 9 & 10 of the Constitution.
Rule of construction of Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"Rights of the States under Constitution".
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
While not inclusive of this articles byline, it could be argued that atheists, who do not believe in a creator, could not possibly have any moral or legal argument that could infringe on the unalienable rights of those who do!
Neutering the EPA
The EPA was created by an executive order of Richard Nixon and
“not established by a single enabling act of Congress.” Therefore the EPA’s recent attempt to bypass congress and march down the Carbon Dioxide yellow brick road, presumably based on secret orders from the Whitehouse and the Czars has no lawful authority. All one needs to do is look at Article 1, Sections 1&7, plus Amendments IX &X and apply
Delegatus Non Potest Delegare. The EPA has no properly delegated authority to regulate CO2, a gas present since earth’s creation, or impose draconian and confiscatory taxation on the generation of power from coal.
The question then becomes, is this case destined for the Supreme Court and
does the Supreme Court really have the constitutional authority to rule on the very document that created it? In a word No! The reason that it has never been stopped in that enlargement of power is because the States and “We the People” have never put a concerted effort together to stop it!
Removing the bad apples from the barrel:
So “We the people” and the States should forget about the Supreme Court route to neuter the EPA and rather pressure congress directly to repeal the executive order that created the EPA and pass a duly constituted law that limits and constrains the EPA. Similarly there is a lesson to be learned from the reconstruction of Germany after WWII, namely
Denazification. In the USA it is obvious that many of the controls of power in this country have been seized by persons whose core belief system lays extra territorially to the USA and diametrically opposed to the Constitution. As recently exposed in
“Blacklisted by History” Senator Joe McCarthy was not wrong in the extent that America was compromised by communist and “Fellow Travelers” in the 1950’s. Dr Bella Dodd’s
“School of Darkness” tells a similar dark story from inside the Communist Party of the USA.
Section III Article 1 of the Constitution states “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour” If we read Federalist papers
#78 and in particular
#39 we find the following passage:
“If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”
What is the antithesis of “Good Behavior”? I would suggest the following would be high on the list:
- Failure to believe in or uphold the Constitution of the USA or recognize it as the Supreme Law of the Land.
- Allegiance to extraterritorial agencies and their laws or mandates (Such as the United Nations and Agenda 21 in particular) whose aims are diametrically opposed to the founding principles of the United States of America and her Constitution.
- Assuming false authority or acting in excess of the properly delegated authority vested in the office that one holds.
- Committing acts of treason by unconstitutionally surrendering portions of United States sovereignty to extraterritorial entities.
- Failure to recognize the power of Congress.
- Failure to recognize “The consent of the Governed” and the powers retained by the people and the states.
Here are some examples that should be removed from Office for non-good behavior:
- Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator of the EPA should be removed from office along with all others subordinate to her who exceeded their delegated authority and unlawfully enacted regulations regarding Coal Fired Power Plants and coal mining in general thus bypassing Congress.
- Ruth Bader Ginsberg should be recused permanently for her comments to Egypt: "Don't Use US Constitution as a Model"
- Elana Kagan for not recusing herself from sitting in judgment of the “Obamacare” act while the following question has never been answered: Was Kagan a "counselor or advisor" on the constitutionality of the healthcare act for the Obama administration?
These are just examples and despite the fact the die has been cast in the “Obamacare” arguments in the Supreme court, it must be recognized that the “Affordable Care Act” had nothing to do with fixing any existing problems with healthcare in the country and everything to do with herding the Sheeple of this country into a corral that limits their freedoms, extinguishes their liberty and places them as much under the thumbs of oppressive bureaucracy as anyone living under states constituted under the top down enumerated freedoms.
Canada is an example of a country where such rights are limited, note the first clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
While Canada is not Communist Romania or the former Soviet Union; the forgoing first clause of the so called Charter of Rights and Freedoms begs the question as to who will regulate “the reasonable limits prescribed by law” and rule on “demonstrable justification”? For example how would this change should the political party in power in the future be based in extreme Marxist principles”? It is most assuredly not “We the people” but rather some bureaucratic largess or politically appointed judges and there are no provisions for “regulating the regulators”.
A Romanian friend of mine who escaped to Canada during the later years of Nicolae Ceaușescu’s rule once quipped to me in the mid 1990’s: “We were freer in Romania under Ceaușescu than the average Canadian under (Jean) Chrétien”. Initially taken aback by that statement I asked him to clarify it and his response was “We all knew the Government was against us and acted accordingly”
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
It is time for the Tea Parties and all who revere the Constitution of this great experiment in Liberty to remember the sacrifices of those who brought us the Magna Charta, Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights and have died defending them over the centuries, to redouble their efforts to push back the tide of Marxist infiltration and complicit subjugation of the United States of America into the New World Order of a Global Socialist Super State. The first skirmish needs to be petitioning for the removal from office those Officials and members of the Judiciary who by their actions have demonstrated they are not constitutionally constrained in their demagogy and habitually exceed their delegated authority on a daily basis.
J D McGrath
