The "
national" government
was created by the States. Congress served as the
"agent" of the States, they were its
"principal". The States were here before the United States was. Prior to the 17
th Amendment, the Senate was appointed by the State Legislatures; this was the States'
veto power over their
"hired help" in Congress.
The 14
th Amendment reversed the
"principal-agent" relationship between the States and Congress. Congress now imposes its "
international law" authority upon the States through this Amendment. Through the 14
th and 17
th Amendments,
Congress has effectively disposed of its "master". It is no longer accountable to the States. Our structure of government has been fundamentally transformed.
Nationalization (
federalization) of many
common-law liberties has been the consequence of the 14
th Amendment,
reversing the historic position that the foundation of those liberties rested largely in
State law.
The ratification of the 14th Amendment now imposed the same substantive
"federal" limitations on the
State 's power to legislate that the First Amendment imposed upon
Congress.
(The 14
th Amendment 's original noble purpose was to establish an ipso-facto citizenship and enforce
statutory "civil rights" conferred by Congress upon minorities, not protect
unalienable "natural rights" derived from the
Creator.)
Bills of Rights protecting the common-law rights of the State citizens are found in each
State Constitution. These inspired the text of the
federal Bill of Rights later added to the United States Constitution, which forced the
federal government (an
international law authority) to recognize and respect our hard won
common-law liberties.
The Constitution gives the
federal government authority only over
Territories. It could not assert its authority over the sovereign autonomous
States or their citizens. By selectively
"incorporating" federal Bill of Rights provisions
into the 14
th Amendment (which has no
Bill of Rights) through its
"due process clause", the
federal government usurps its jurisdictional boundary limitations by imposing them into what was originally the
State 's exclusive dominion. The general government now functions in a
"national" rather than a
"federal" character.
The
principal-agent relationship between the sovereign
States and their
"agent", Congress, is reversed. Congress is no longer accountable to the States.
The stealthy process of selectively
"incorporating" (adding
-- by 'judicial activism') provisions of the
"federal" Bill of Rights into the 14
th Amendment via its
"due process clause" has been a steady one. The revolution occasioned by the 14
th Amendment has steadily progressed as Article after Article has been
"incorporated" into it, thereby making them applicable to and enforceable upon the States. The effect and consequence of this has been the redefining of common-law language terms into contradictory
maritime-international law definition counterparts.
The
"Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment was not
"incorporated" into the 14
th Amendment until the
Everson v. Board of Education case was decided in
1947. This was not pursuant to the will or
"intent" of the Founding Fathers, but in spite of it.
We observe a dangerous example of a corrupted de-facto application of the 14
th Amendment 's original noble purpose now being exerted to impose the
Law of Nations upon the States (forcing them to violate their own Constitutions) which nullify and invalidate the common-law mandates that they were originally established to administer - thereby effectively nullifying
"Americanism" itself. The 14
th Amendment is America's nemesis. The
"alien jurisdiction" complained of in the Declaration of Independence which provoked the Revolutionary War is back in full force.
The advocates of
secular humanizing (Soviet-izing) the United States have sedulously managed to reverse the
"factually correct" historical character and influence of our religious heritage by exerting a dubious
nonexistent alien constitutional doctrine to force a
fiat denial of the very foundation of this great nation 's roots, and the source from whence our cherished rights and liberties derive.
This so called
"establishment clause" is now being adjudicated to embrace, advance, and protect atheism, supposedly guaranteeing a right of the atheist to be free
from religion, the exact opposite of the Founding Fathers ' intent, which was to protect the free exercise
of religion.
It appears that
secular humanism has now become the federal
"established religion" in the United States. We are following its tenets to the letter. An orchestrated dismantling of America is being successfully undertaken. Now subject to
"international law", (world law)
we are being systematically
"merged" with the Soviet Union through the United Nations Charter (an almost carbon copy of the USSR Constitution)
into a socialist global government as was discussed in Parts 1 and 2 of this series.
We will close this topic with a
"teaching moment" from the learned opinion of Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist in
Wallace v. Jaffree that shows just how absurd a farce this
"wall of separation" concept has become. To wit:
"The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and non-religion, nor did it prohibit the
Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion.
There is simply no historic foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in
Everson.
Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of ridged separation, the
"wall" idea might well have served a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led this court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson our Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified.
Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities, have with embarrassing candor conceded that
the "wall of separation" is merely a blurred, indistinct, and invariable barrier which is not wholly accurate and can only be dimly perceived.
Whether due to
its lack of historical support or its practical unworkability,
the Everson "wall" has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication.
The greatest injury of the
"wall" notion is its mischievous
diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. No amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true.
The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned".
Only State governments recognize Natural Law (common-law), God, and unalienable
"natural" rights derived therefrom. The "
federal" government only recognizes legislated
"positive law" (statutes).
Civil Rights Acts by which Congress provides
statutory equality (
civil rights) to minorities are legislated
"positive law". The
"federal" government only recognizes and enforces statutory "civil rights" which protect minorities from abuses by State authority.
Our rights no longer are recognized as coming from God,
"civil rights" come from Congress, we now need permission from government to do everything, even to exist. Welcome to the New World Order.
Anyone wanting a more detailed insight into the proper
"principal-agent" relationship between the States and the national government and the legitimate Constitutional relationship between the two - from the U.S. S. Ct., see:
Carter vs. Carter Coal Co., 298 US 238 (1936)
