What Is The Militia And How Can It Save Our 2nd Amendment Rights?

(By:  Chuck Thompson)
What is the Militia and how can it save our 2nd Amendment rights?  The militia folks is a Constitutionally authorized part of "We The People", and the power and or force behind "We The People", in regards to our government.  It is meant to be our first line of home defense.  When I say home defense it includes your actual household and all members therein, but is meant to include local communities and even our state which we live in.

  There are 4 militia clauses found in the United States Constitution as well as in just about every state constitution.  Right now, main stream media either through ignorance or an act of the poison pen and propaganda is working overtime to discredit the militia by calling Anarchists and or paramilitary operations militias.  There is very clearly some serious differences here.  Militias properly structured and run according to the laws of these United States and each of the several states is fully legal and or lawful.  Paramilitary organizations follow whatever laws they create or no laws at all.  The militia is not about violence.  It is about defending against violence and unlawful disorder.  So let's stop confusing the two.  They look similar until you break them down and look at the structure.

  The militia upholds the Constitution and the common law.  It protects and is the power behind "We The People".  It's members who decide to register as active unorganized militia, will be working with the local sheriff's offices throughout the nation.  Paramilitary are not structured like that.  To put it simply, "We The People are the authority of a Constitutional Government.  The Militia, composed of "We The People" are the power or force behind that authority.  It's government by consent as it should be.  It's what we have failed to uphold and let slip away over the past 175 years.  It's time to bring it back.  Militias are forming throughout the Commonwealth and there are other militias that have already been here.  There are also paramilitary organizations throughout the Commonwealth and more of them forming as well.  You will want to know the difference. 

  A new organization known as the National Militia Alliance has been formed and is partnered with the National Liberty Alliance to help folks either create or become members of local militias throughout the Commonwealth as well as throughout the nation.  The NMA is not in charge of any militia in any area but instead is a central location to help people receive the proper training, education, communications and networking needed to be in compliance with the Constitution of these United States of America and of each state.  There is no fee to register or for most of the education, training communications or assistance in starting or becoming members of the militia in any area of these United States of America.

https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/militia  Click the link provided to register now.

Official Declaration of Contempt of Constitution by The People of the United States of America

With this Document, Filed, Presented or Posted with any agency, department, representative or body politic of government in any form which such government shall take, shall be construed by force majeure as the same shall be duly gathered by We THE People, and the same shall at any time be required or necessary, to be an official and undeniable Declaration of CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION for the People of the United States of America, and sets forth the following information and Declaration in support thereof.

The inherent authority and power to charge one with contempt of court has long been recognized within the courts and the legal structure of the governments of the United States of America. It has been well understood, and is accepted, that such authority and power belongs to common law courts as a result of the nature of what contempt of court is, an inherent authority and power being undeniable and un-separable to the courts because of the nature of what that authority and power is. It is further recognized by We THE People, as claimed by the courts themselves, that contempt of court is the highest authority and power as being true and correct on its face accordingly.

Likewise, it is recognized that such authority and power arose first from an acknowledgement and allowance of the King of England in the early Eighteenth century, or early 1700’s, as revealed by the U.S. Supreme Court case of In Re Green v. U.S., N.Y., 78 S. Ct. 632, 356 U.S. 165, 2L. Ed. 2d 672. This revelation being thus shown to illustrate the fact that the power of contempt of court itself actually comes under the sovereignty of a country just as it did in England at that time centuries ago, proves to the People and establishes by like principle that the power of contempt of court in the United States also belongs under the ultimate Sovereignty of the United States of America the republic thereof, or the People, as was expressly embodied in the Preamble as “We the People.”

Proclaiming and explaining the inherent right of the courts themselves to simply declare the right to contempt of court, it is stated at Corpus Juris Secundun, Volume 17, Section 43, Page 108 that “In order that any human agency may accomplish its purpose, it is necessary that it possess power.” The executive must have power to direct or control his business. The Superintendent must have power to direct his men. In order to accomplish the purposes for which they were created, courts must also possess powers. … these powers are called inherent powers. Among these powers is the power to punish for contempt.”

We THE People of the United States of America, having come together in peaceful assembly to return to Original Jurisdiction and Venue and return the formation of a republic, being noted in the Preamble as “We the People,” likewise have, and hereby reveal and prescribe, an Inherent Authority and Power, and for the same or similar reasons, in their own fashion, do so reason and Declare:

In order that any human body of people forming a constitution representing them directly by prescribed or written agency may accomplish their purposes, in order to keep their constitution secure, safe and sound in its integrity, clean, pure, inviolable (not being violated), it is necessary that that body of people possess all inherent authority and power. The business owner must have authority and power to direct or control his business or punish or fire bad employees who refuse to be directed or controlled as required. The Superintendent must have authority and power to direct his men. In order to accomplish the purpose for which they created a Constitution, a People organized in a republic, or even recognized between themselves as bearing or having a constitution, whether or not written, must also possess Authority and Powers. …these authorities and powers are called Inherent Authorities and Powers. These Authorities and Powers are undeniable, irrevocable, irreversible, indisputable, and unalienable, by any elements of government. Among these authorities and powers is the authority and power to punish for Contempt of Constitution. Contempt of Constitution belongs and is inherent to We THE People alone. No part of authority or power of government may attach it, detract from it, taint it, or approach it.

Furthermore, not only does the Inherent Authority and Power of Contempt of Constitution belong to the People alone, wherefore no body of government may approach it without committing Contempt of Constitution at its highest level, but the principle of Contempt of Constitution was embodied by the Constitution’s Founding Fathers or Framers, at Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, perceived and understood therein as “breach of Peace” being understood so to be, to wit:

Treason and Felony are referred to in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, but Misdemeanor is not. Thus, mere Misdemeanors, even if seemingly causing a breach of peace by today’s standards, would not be sufficient to prevent a Congressman or Senator from attending Congress in session. Reviewing all forms of Misdemeanors and recognizing that none of them apply to such a breach as described in the Constitution, by process of elimination, the only kind of breach that could be so serious as to be thought by the Founding Fathers as being worthy to stop an attendance of Congress in session was that kind of an offense serious enough to be regarded as equal or greater than the commitment of either a treason of felony.

Whenever any person of We THE People, or the People as a Whole, shall have their rights subsequent to mandated rights and requirements usurped by government, and shall further have as to such abuse, contempt, or usurpation by government their:

Rights that any person or People not be assaulted in their fundamental or constitutional rights or their rights of due process in connection with Life, Liberty and Property are abused or denied (5th Amendment);

Rights to be or feel secure in their houses, not just house, as to all their communications, even with modern technology, the advent of modern technology not amending the Constitution in any part thereof (4th Amendment);

Rights to feel secure while traveling abroad by not being forced under penalty of fine or imprisonment (being in duress, by the conduct of government agents) or violation of other rights to show or produce their papers (4th & 5th Amendment);

Rights of speech, religion, assembly, the press, and petition, not polluted with false concepts of expression leading to gross depravity. Perversion, and leading to all forms of social self-destruction, including children murdering children (1st & 9th Amendments);

Rights to exist peacefully in their homes during times of peace (3rd Amendment);

Rights not to have the State’s militia suppressed, oppressed, or done away with under pretense or disguise of being a national guard, or military assaults committed against private homes for constitutionally violation purposes (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 & 2nd, 8th and 10th Amendments);

Rights of justice by an impartial jury, under control (trial, try – to control) of a Jury, not under control of a judge, thus representing the People directly (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 and the 6th Amendment);

Rights to not have judges wearing the (black) robes of England or any other country, to not be required to “all rise” for, to not be required to speak, say or lavish the title of honor where no constitutional law can be required of the People to do so, and to have government of the United States and of the several States to not support, either by law or by practice, a title of such as, but not limited to “esquire,” or any association or organization, foreign or domestic, in support thereof (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1);

Rights to be fully informed of all material facts that transpire in the courts, not to have judges or attorneys take “silent judicial notice” of elements of proceedings thereby impairing the obligation of contract with the court (Article I, Section 10, Clause 6);

Rights to have the separation of powers between the several States and the United States in cases of criminal offense alleged and recognized (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3);

Rights to have all commerce not crossing or else no longer crossing a State’s borders recognized as intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce, and therefore not under the power and authority of the United States government (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3);

Rights to not have Congress have the right to regulate (make regular or uniform) commerce among the States (or interstate commerce) to be extended to mean “to regulate or control interstate society” where such wording is not plainly stated (not being found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3);

Rights to assistance of counsel (not necessarily attorney or lawyers), assistance not being forced, controlled or limited by any organization what-so-ever (6th Amendment);

Rights against governmental and other encroachments to have civil matters in cases of determined value tried by jury, also not under the control of a lawyer judge (7th Amendment);

Rights of reasonable bail set, but not by prosecution and trial, and no cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment);

Rights to not be forced to use an unlawfull form of money, consideration or value received on export (or income from an accounting standpoint) be taxable by the United States Corporation or Government, weather alleged to be to any foreign country or to any local county or State or nation, or no tax on the export side of interstate commerce in any form (Article I, Section 9, Clause 5);

Rights to the Inherent Right to have the language of the People, in all aspects to which it applies to them, belong to the People alone and under their control, and to not belong to or be controlled by any form of government thereof to any degree whatsoever, and rights to the common law thereunder (9th, 5th and 7th Amendments);

Rights to have all rights, through not specifically numbered (enumerated) within the Constitution but retained without Article V required amendment, retained by the First Generation, or that generation which came under the wording “retained by the people” (9th Amendment);

Rights to have certain powers considered forever and distinctly separate between bodies of government, United States, States, and People (10th Amendment);

Rights to bear arms in order to secure against the loss of the condition of a free state, whether by overt or covert means, being the loss of right to Life, Liberty and Property without due process of the law (2nd Amendment combined with the 5th Amendment);

Rights of all other things as they exist within the main body of the Constitution itself as well as other parts of the Constitution not named;

Then they, the People, are NOT at peace by any of these breaches, either as individuals, or as a People, and Peace clearly has been breached thereby. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1- the minimal embodiment of Contempt of Constitution.

THEREFORE, by these unalienable and mutual understandings beheld now by We THE People, whether or not previously spoken, written, or declared by any knowledge of fact or law, and by mutual covenants of the People, by the People, and between the People unspoken and unwritten yet existent, thus giving their heart-felt, undeniable, and solemn consent to this proceeding, without regard to any expressed numeration of the People so represented hereby but being all inclusive for all of the People United, the People of the United States of America and of the Several States do file and Declare CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION to belong as an inherent Power to them, the People, alone, AND THAT by each and every filing and declaration of this Inherent Power throughout the land, this Unalienable Power of Contempt of Constitution shall, for the People alone, GROW EXPOENTIALLY accordingly.

THAT because Contempt by its own nature is a Quasi-Crime, or has many different appearances and aspects, and not a civil offense, and because there are different classes of Contempt, re: Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 17, Section 43, Page 115, it is necessary to set forth what appears to be the different classes of Contempt of Constitution herein.

Definitions

The definition(s) of Contempt of Constitution is as follows: Contempt of Constitution is a Sovereign Crime, committed against the sovereign person(s) = People whom such Constitution represents. For the purposes of defining Contempt of Constitution as applicable to the Constitution for the United States of America, the classification of and degrees of types of Contempt of Constitution and like crimes shall be, and hereby are:

General Contempt. Where Contempt has been committed or asserted, but may have been done ignorantly or unknowingly. (Not a defense) This shall include Attempted Contempt.

Malicious Contempt. Where General Contempt has been repeated, so that ignorance of the law is clearly no excuse, or contempt deliberately committed with afore knowledge, or where the results of the contempt is severe against one or more of the person(s) = People victimized by it so that a distinct harm has befallen or inevitably will befall such person(s) = People.

Tyrannical Malicious Contempt. Contempt so strong that it is apparent that the author(s) of tyranny work(s) act of Malicious Contempt, on a similar or dissimilar basis, in an effort, no matter how small, to gain a destructive power over any person=People within the United States of America or any of its territories, or where a corrupt use, or corrupt taking-part in such use, of power, whether or not, by any manner delegated, whereby such power may be used maliciously toward any citizen or any person=People under the protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America.

Noble Contempt. Noble Contempt of Constitution occurs when a person or business is recognized and=or treated differently, either greater or lesser, under any operation of law (even though a special fee {which shall be unlawfull} might have been paid to a government for such special recognition) that is recognized for other common or ordinary People, as well as for businesses. Noble Contempt also exists wherein private People or businesses are elevated in status above other common People or businesses by either what they are provided as rights to be entitled, above other People of equal merit, to do or by where they are regarded by some sense of fame already in existence as to be given advantage(s) that other ordinary or common People or businesses under the same circumstances would not be provided. Noble Contempt shall also include Noble Contempt by De-nobilization, which is an act of subjecting an individual or even a specific populous to a condition of degradation or reduction in status of importance under the law, whether by statute, code, regulation or common law, in favor of not reducing all People equally, to be affected thereby. This jurisdictional charge and all penalties hereunder, shall apply to both People and non-nationals of the United States of America and of any State. This is an Inherent Power expressed by the Constitution at Article I, Section 9 Clause 8, and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.

Noble Malicious Contempt. Is the establishment of Noble Contempt where the party or parties involved in such contemptuous activity refuse to vacate such Contempt and such Contempt can be shown to work a hardship or deprivation of common rights upon any other United States of America native born national or native born in a state of the union. This jurisdictional charge and all penalties hereunder, shall apply to both native born People and non-nationals of the United States of America and of any State. This is an Inherent Authority and Power expressed by the Constitution at article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.

Noble Tyrannical Malicious Contempt. Is the establishment of Noble Contempt on a harsh and repetitive basis where the party or parties involved in such contemptuous activity effectuate such Contempt to the degree that it represents a blatant disregard for basic human rights, rights embraced by the Constitution, where gross insensitivity toward the suffering of any United States of America native born Freeman or Free-Woman is the result, and it is reasonably believed that the party or parties knew of the unconstitutionality of their acts but proceeded with obvious Contempt to continue them at any cost, or where there shall be a corrupt use of power in conjunction with such Noble Tyrannical Malicious Contempt, whether or not, by any manner, delegated, that may be used maliciously as toward any native born Freeman or Free-Woman of, or any person=People under the protection of the United States of America nor any of its territories. Furthermore, Noble Tyrannical Malicious Contempt may be recognized as having been committed in any event where the wanton disregard for the rights, safety and secureness of the common native born Freeman or free-Woman, whether or not the same shall be considered sovereign, is enacted, as represented by the scientific formula written as ” ∑(#1) = F∞” (Total Humanity),” putting all or a great portion of humanity at risk of life and=or liberty for the benefit of one, which may be representatively defined in analogical format, put in antiquated-like, but not clearly expressive terms as, “The Sum of Me is Equal To All of Thee.”

IN THE FURTHERANCE of this DECLARATION of CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION, where there shall be any attempt to refute, deny, or twist the same so as to be made of alleged non-effect, while holding that the authority and power of contempt of court exists at all, it is further hereby NOTED, UNDERSTOOD, and DECLARED THAT if there be at any time any claim that CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION does not exist or that the We THE People have no right thereto, that contempt of court does not exist or that the We THE People have no right thereto, then contempt of court does not exist either, nor contempt of legislature, nor contempt of the executive; the lower cannot supersede the higher, nor set it aside. Therefore, any attempt to declare that Contempt of Constitution does not exist for or belong to We THE People alone in favor of contempt of court or any other authority or power of government, represents a Contempt of Constitution to the Tyrannical Malicious Degree, and is inherently prosecutable there under.

Other forms of Contempt of Constitution may exist as We THE People alone discern or duly proclaim them to be hereafter.

NOTED NOW, and DESCERNED. There is no statute of limitations of Contempt of Constitution, and there can be none, except it be declared by We THE People themselves, which they shall not, except it be by Amendment by Pure Convention, (shall) do.

Contempt of Constitution

Has been formally and officially Declared by this proceeding to the same extent as contempt of court was first declared many ages ago, and has the same lawfull intent and purpose as does contempt of court, the keeping and securing of the Constitution in a safe and sound condition, maintaining its integrity in its rights established solely for the benefit of We THE People of the United States of America.

A tribunal representing a lawfull force recognized by and under the Constitution of the United States of America (Article I, Section 8, Clause 9), also by the power of the tribunals long known and existing under common law, by the power of separate and third party existence as established under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Circa 1778 as amended at 1791, the Tribunal of We THE People undersigned, representing the People in law and in sovereign law, whether by direct representation or by those solemn and sovereign authority and powers in spirit and in fact as embodied and held, being retained by the First Generation as set forth and required by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, now hereby below subscribe their appellations, giving force, authority and power to this proceeding and Declaration, by use by proxy of the appellations of those Founding Fathers whose historical appellations now are entered below upon this Extraordinary Writ of Sovereign Declaration, joined by others thereafter in spirit and=or in fact, this Declaration of Contempt of Constitution is and has been put into Perpetual and Sovereign Effect and Power by the Power and Effect of these Three appellations so autographed, real People=Citizens standing in Symbolic Proxy for the Same, and is therefore,

{Place your statement of facts and=or your issue by verified Affidavit}

It is Ordered, Sentenced and Decreed by the Lawfull Authority and Power by the Political Will of We THE People of the United States of America the date of the Declaration of this Inherent Authority and Power of Contempt of Constitution being Timeless, extending to all times when the offense(s) shall have been committed, by

Autograph: (Seal)

Autograph: (Seal)

Autograph: (Seal)

We have no idea who the original author is but this came off the site linked below and posted by "Freewill".

 http://www.nesaranetwork.com/2014/07/31/contempt-of-constitution-by-the-people-of-the-united-states-of-america-repost/

Related articles

• Federalist Papers No. 47. The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts.
• Federalist Papers No. 44. Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 45 - Powers Of National Government Dangerous To State Governments; New York As An Example
• Anti Federalist Paper No. 16 - EUROPEANS ADMIRE AND FEDERALISTS DECRY THE PRESENT SYSTEM
• FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 40. On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained.
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 32 - Federal Taxation And The Doctrine Of Implied Powers (Part 1)

Federalist Papers No. 44. Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States

From the New York Packet. Friday, January 25, 1788.

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

A FIFTH class of provisions in favor of the federal authority consists of the following restrictions on the authority of the several States:

1. "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility."

The prohibition against treaties, alliances, and confederations makes a part of the existing articles of Union; and for reasons which need no explanation, is copied into the new Constitution. The prohibition of letters of marque is another part of the old system, but is somewhat extended in the new. According to the former, letters of marque could be granted by the States after a declaration of war; according to the latter, these licenses must be obtained, as well during war as previous to its declaration, from the government of the United States. This alteration is fully justified by the advantage of uniformity in all points which relate to foreign powers; and of immediate responsibility to the nation in all those for whose conduct the nation itself is to be responsible.

The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was left in their hands by the Confederation, as a concurrent right with that of Congress, under an exception in favor of the exclusive right of Congress to regulate the alloy and value. In this instance, also, the new provision is an improvement on the old. Whilst the alloy and value depended on the general authority, a right of coinage in the particular States could have no other effect than to multiply expensive mints and diversify the forms and weights of the circulating pieces. The latter inconveniency defeats one purpose for which the power was originally submitted to the federal head; and as far as the former might prevent an inconvenient remittance of gold and silver to the central mint for recoinage, the end can be as well attained by local mints established under the general authority.

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency.

Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society. The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.

2. "No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

The restraint on the power of the States over imports and exports is enforced by all the arguments which prove the necessity of submitting the regulation of trade to the federal councils. It is needless, therefore, to remark further on this head, than that the manner in which the restraint is qualified seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion. The remaining particulars of this clause fall within reasonings which are either so obvious, or have been so fully developed, that they may be passed over without remark.

The SIXTH and last class consists of the several powers and provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest.

1. Of these the first is, the "power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the SUBSTANCE of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the Constitution, can only mean that the FORM of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted?

There are four other possible methods which the Constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing Confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not EXPRESSLY delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference.

Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of Confederation, it is evident that the new Congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "EXPRESSLY" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction. It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of Confederation, has been or can be executed by Congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of CONSTRUCTION or IMPLICATION. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the Constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not EXPRESSLY granted.

Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the PARTICULAR POWERS, which are the means of attaining the OBJECT of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.

Had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, NOT NECESSARY OR PROPER, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made.

Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. Had this last method, therefore, been pursued by the convention, every objection now urged against their plan would remain in all its plausibility; and the real inconveniency would be incurred of not removing a pretext which may be seized on critical occasions for drawing into question the essential powers of the Union.

If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed.

2. "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor.

In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors.

In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution.

In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others.

In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.

3. "The Senators and Representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

It has been asked why it was thought necessary, that the State magistracy should be bound to support the federal Constitution, and unnecessary that a like oath should be imposed on the officers of the United States, in favor of the State constitutions.

Several reasons might be assigned for the distinction. I content myself with one, which is obvious and conclusive. The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary, will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution. The election of the President and Senate will depend, in all cases, on the legislatures of the several States. And the election of the House of Representatives will equally depend on the same authority in the first instance; and will, probably, forever be conducted by the officers, and according to the laws, of the States.

4. Among the provisions for giving efficacy to the federal powers might be added those which belong to the executive and judiciary departments: but as these are reserved for particular examination in another place, I pass them over in this.

We have now reviewed, in detail, all the articles composing the sum or quantity of power delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, and are brought to this undeniable conclusion, that no part of the power is unnecessary or improper for accomplishing the necessary objects of the Union. The question, therefore, whether this amount of power shall be granted or not, resolves itself into another question, whether or not a government commensurate to the exigencies of the Union shall be established; or, in other words, whether the Union itself shall be preserved.

PUBLIUS

Learn more about American history.  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.

Related articles

• Federalist Papers No. 42. The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 21 Why The Articles Failed
• Anti Federalist Papers No 12 - How WIll The New Government Raise Money?
• Federalist Papers No. 32. The Same Subject Continued (Concerning the General Power of Taxation)
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 30-31 - A Virginia Anti-Federalist On The Issue Of Taxation
• Federalist Papers No 5 - Dangers From Foreign Force And Influence