‘If Obama Doesn't Follow the Constitution, We Don’t Have To", Say's A Police Officer On Video

English: First page of Constitution of the United States  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | AUGUST 6, 2014
A shocking video shows a New Jersey cop responding to a complaint about corruption by asserting that law enforcement officers no longer need to follow the Constitution because it has already been decimated by President Obama.

Seeking to file a complaint about the Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter, Steve Wronko visited the Helmetta Police Department to air his grievances about the shelter falling prey to nepotism and corruption as a result of Helmetta Mayor Nancy Martin appointing her son Brandon Metz to head up the facility.

“I’ve made objections about what’s going on at the shelter over there,” Wronko tells the police officer, adding, “My first and fourth amendment rights were violated, my civil rights were violated.”

“Obama just decimated the freakin’ Constitution, so I don’t give a damn. If he doesn’t follow the Constitution, we don’t have to,” responds the cop, brazenly violating the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.

The comment is self-evidently shocking, but it also provides an insight as to how corruption from the very top reaches all the way down to the bottom, providing law enforcement with a twisted form of justification for their unconstitutional activities.

At the end of the video, other police officers arrive to kick Wronko out of the building, with the cop who doesn’t give a “damn” about constitutional rights stating, “Either you get out or you’re gonna get locked up.”

“Maybe this instance, captured on film for the whole world to see, will serve as a wake up call to those who may still be asleep,” writes Matt Agorist. “Please share this so that it can help others to see the leviathan for what it is, a gang of thieves writ large.”

The only question that remains is if police officers feel they no longer need to follow the Constitution, should Americans be expected to obey the law?

http://www.infowars.com/cop-if-obama-doesnt-follow-the-constitution-we-dont-have-to/  Link back to source story.  We normally do not get our news from Alex Jones, but even he sometimes gets some interesting news that should not be ignored.  

Related articles

• An Ex-Cop's Guide to Not Getting Arrested
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 6)
• Protecting Your Rights
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control In Violation of it's Own Ordinances?
• How to Stop the FBI From Reading Your Email
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 1)

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 9)

Battle of the Hook, 2013 (Photo credit: Battleofthehook)

By Thomas James Norton

IN MAY, 1933, CONGRESS, BY THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, UNLAWFULLY PERMITTED THE PRESIDENT TO REDUCE THE GOLD CONTENT OF THE STANDARD DOLLAR

It was well settled law (293 U. S. 388) that the power conferred on Congress by the Constitution cannot be delegated to another Department. That principle of the law of Agency was found by Bryce to be the best conception of the Constitutional Convention.
Yet the Legislative Department authorized the President, by a Senate amendment to the House Agricultural Adjustment bill, to reduce the content of the gold dollar, but not below 50 per cent. In 1936 the Agricultural Adjustment Act was held (297 U. S. 1) unconstitutional for taking money from one class for the benefit of another. But in the meantime the President had acted on the Senate amendment and cut the gold dollar.
Among the powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution is that "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin." At the time the Constitution was written there was much coin of other nations in circulation in America. The Spanish silver dollar was the coin of first importance. By the language quoted, recognition was given to the fact that governments had found it necessary

133

---

134

to change the content of their standard coins, a course which conditions might make necessary in the New World.
President given no authority over money
But all the authority given by the Constitution was conferred, as the language quoted puts beyond question, on Congress alone. Neither in Article I, creating the Legislative Department, nor in Article II, establishing the Executive Department, is there even an intimation that the President should have anything to do with regulating the value of money. That is to say, the power was withheld from him. For another elementary rule of interpretation is that what is not granted is prohibited.
With the authority to regulate the value of coin limited by the Constitution to Congress, the President was, nevertheless, directed (or, what is more probable, allowed) by Congress to perform its task of fixing the value of the dollar. It was for Congress to determine whether the content of the dollar should be changed and, if so, to change it.
Constitutional power cannot be delegated
Delegation of administrative powers to fact-finding bodies which are guided, not by their own will or judgment, but by the specifications and limitations in the Acts of Congress creating them, has been common. The Federal Trade Commission, the Board of Tax Appeals, and many other agencies have been set up to relieve Congress of details not legislative .
But "the Congress, manifestly, is not permitted to abdicate, or transfer to others, the essential legislative functions with which it is invested," said the Supreme Court (293 U. S. 388) in 1934. (Italics inserted.) It pointed out

---

135

the settled practice that Congress, in the act of delegating administrative powers, must declare a policy, establish a standard, and lay down a rule for its agent to follow in executing the Congressional (not its own) will.
In passing to the President an "essential legislative function," not a merely administrative function, second to none conferred by the Constitution on it, Congress did not itself, so far as the Act and the Joint Resolution show, determine anything -- except that the Chief Executive might use his own judgment within a very wide range.
Here began the course of unconstitutional conduct by Congress which brought upon it and its successors the epithet of "rubber stamp."
The beginning of "directives" by the President
So, on January 31, 1934, the President "directed" that the standard gold dollar be reduced from 25.8 grains to 15-5/21 (15.238) grains.
On March 9, 1933, Congress had passed the Emergency Banking Relief Bill, which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to require all persons to deliver to the Treasurer of the United States "any and all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates" owned by them, and to accept therefor "an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency."
Here began the practice of the President and his rubber-stamp Congress of declaring an "emergency" when it seemed desirable to seize power not granted by the Constitution.
But "emergency does not create power," wrote Chief Justice Hughes (1934) in an opinion (290 U. S. 398) sustaining a law of Minnesota (1933) which extended the

---

136

time for an owner of property to redeem it after sale under foreclosure of mortgage.
Congress repudiated its contract with the people
By a Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, Congress proclaimed that the promises of the United States in the law under which the Second, Third, and Fourth Liberty Bonds were issued "are hereby repealed" so far as they pledged any payment except "dollar for dollar in any coin or currency which at the time is legal tender." The United States had borrowed money of the people for carrying on World War I and had issued bonds therefor payable as to both principal and interest "in the United States gold coin of the present [1918] standard of value." That is, in dollars containing 25.8 grains of gold nine-tenths fine.
The vastness of the debt repudiated
Just before this legislation, in 1932, the interest-bearing debt of the Nation was $19,161,273,540.^[1]
At that time the States had submerged themselves in an interest-bearing debt of $17,589,515,000.^[2]
Thus, the two governments of the American had loaded him in a time of peace with a burden of $36,750,788,540.
On the National Debt he was paying a yearly interest of $599,276,631, and the debt of his States cost him yearly in interest $527,685,450.
His interest load for the two debts was $1,126,962,081 per year, or $155,399,491 more than the National Debt the year before we entered World War I.
1. Report Secretary of Treasury, p. 405.
2. Financial Statistics States, pp. 52, 64.

---

137

National and State governments had agreed with those who lent to them $36,750,788,540 to pay in dollars containing 25.8 grains gold. They had likewise promised to pay in such dollars yearly in interest $1,126,962,081.
But the governments would henceforward measure their debt to those who had lent money to them in time of need by a dollar containing 15-5/21 grains of gold instead of the promised dollar of 25.8 grains. Nor, as before said, would their creditors, under the decision of the Supreme Court, to be noticed presently, get the lesser gold dollar. They would be obliged to take paper money. Neither would they, the Supreme Court held, be entitled to enough additional paper money to compensate for the difference between the dollar lent and the dollar paid back.
The "profits" to governments from repudiation
The measure of value by which debtor and creditor had contracted was cut down not quite 41 per cent. If the debts of the Nation and the States just before given were to be cut down 40 per cent the debtor governments would gain over 15.7 billion dollars; and, of course, the people from whom they borrowed would be out of pocket that much, only a little less than the National Debt amounted to in 1931 after Secretary Mellon, by wise management, had reduced it almost 9 billion from the World War I peak of 25 billion, 234 million.
In like manner, all the other debtors in the United States, those not holding bonds or other obligations of Government, would receive in the depleted dollar from their creditors a forced forgiveness of 40 per cent of their debts.
That this was the effect of the performance was ad-

---

138

mitted of record by the Secretary of the Treasury in the report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, where (p. 364), under receipts of money, there was entered "increment resulting from devaluation of gold dollar, $2,811,375,756." Whether that amount was allocated to 1946, or to all the years up to that time, does not appear; but the "clip" on all the bonds of the United States outstanding was $7,760,315,773.
Chief Justice Marshall on honor in government
On the action of the Government in favoring debtors -- and most of all itself and the States -- by clipping the dollar 40 per cent, in one of the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall this is to be found:
"It may well be doubted whether the nature of society and of Government does not prescribe some limits to the legislative power; and, if any be prescribed, where are they to be found if the property of an individual, fairly and honestly acquired, may be seized without compensation."^[3]
Hamilton on inviolability of governmental contracts
Long before that, Alexander Hamilton, who was Secretary of the Treasury in the Cabinet of Washington, stated with his characteristic clarity and force the position of a contracting Government, as ours was a contracting Government when it borrowed money from the people and promised to pay in dollars containing 25.8 grains of gold:
"When a government enters into a contract with an in-
3. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch. 87, 135.

---

139

dividual, it deposes, as to the matter of the contract, its constitutional authority, and exchanges the character of legislator for that of a moral agent, with the same rights and obligations as an individual. Its promises may justly be considered as excepted out of its power to legislate, unless in aid of them. It is in theory impossible to reconcile the idea of a promise which obliges with a power to make a law which can vary the effect of it."^[4]
Hamilton was a member of the Constitutional Convention, which "told the world" that the new Government would pay the creditors of the old.
Constitutional Convention for payment of all debts
Among the final words of the Constitution are these:
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation."
That provision gave the United States high standing and credit among the nations.
On the morality of government respecting its debt, Madison made this interesting observation ( The Federalist , No. 43):
"This can only be considered a declaratory proposition; and may have been inserted, among other reasons, for the satisfaction of the foreign creditors of the United States, who cannot be strangers to the pretended doctrine that a change in the political form of civil society has the magical effect of dissolving its moral obligations."
4. Hamilton's Works, 518.

---

140

The fine example set to the nations by the Constitutional Convention has not been accepted by them.
Once we upbraided governments of Europe for repudiating the obligations to us which they had incurred for World War I. But we can do that no longer.
Insolence attended repudiation of gold contracts
From the review which has been made of opinion on both sides of this subject, it is manifest that the Government of the United States, without adequate explanation to the people, took a step respecting their property of tremendous importance to them. The only pretense of explanation by the Government, as a Government, was in the authority given by a rider on the Agricultural Adjustment Act to the President to "fix the weight of the gold dollar ... as he finds necessary ... to stabilize domestic prices or to protect foreign commerce against the adverse effect of depreciated foreign currencies"; and in the Joint Resolution of Congress (June 5,1933) declaring that "the holding or dealing in gold" had been disclosed by "the existing emergency" to "obstruct the power of Congress to regulate the value of money," for which reason "any obligation" purporting to give to the lender of money "a right to require payment in gold" was "declared to be against public policy."
But just how the cut by the President of 40 per cent from the gold dollar would stabilize domestic prices or protect foreign commerce, or how the repudiation by Congress of its promises to pay its bonded debts in gold, with the release of all other debtors from such promises, would help it "to regulate the value of money," was left without

---

141

explanation beyond the bare recitals just quoted from the acts.
The opinions of some writers on finance
Some writers on finance had contended that the value of the gold in a dollar had increased in the market, and that therefore the creditor (the holder of bonds, the depositor of money, and some others) were receiving value above that intended by their contracts, for which reason a reduction of the content of the gold dollar was called for. But, as before indicated, the representatives of the Government said that the purpose was to increase the price of agricultural commodities, to stabilize American money against foreign currencies, and to make a profit for the Treasury of the United States.
While the depletion of the dollar quickly lifted the prices of wheat and other products in demand in foreign markets, it less quickly, but just as surely, increased the costs at home -- of food, of clothing, of housing, of living. If the writers on finance were right, then the wearying burden of living costs carried by the American for fifteen years is in considerable part attributable to the devaluation of the gold dollar.
Supreme Court expounded repudiation
In one of the three Gold Clause Cases the Supreme Court held, on February 18, 1935, in an opinion by Chief Justice Hughes, that the Fourth Liberty Bonds of the United States, promising to pay the buyer (the lender of money to the Government) "in the United States gold coin of the present [1918] standard of value," could not be repudiated as to the form of payment. The bonds having

---

142

been issued under the clause of section 8 of Article I of the Constitution authorizing Congress "to borrow money on the credit of the United States," and being affected by the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that "the validity of the Public Debt of the United States authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned," those quoted expressions stating the sovereign will of the people, it was not within the power of Congress, a servant of the people with inferior authority, "to override their will thus declared," and by the joint resolution of June 5, 1933, to proclaim that the promises in the law under which the bonds were issued "are hereby repealed" so far as they pledged any payment except "dollar for dollar in any coin or currency which at the time is legal tender."^[5]
Yet the bondholder won a Pyrrhic victory. He got nothing but a favorable judicial declaration that he should be paid in gold when the gold of the country had been seized and withdrawn from circulation.
The holder of Government bonds thoroughly "frisked"
Nor did he get in paper money the additional sum to equate the difference between the two gold dollars for the reason that "the plaintiff," the Court said, "has not shown, or attempted to show, that in relation to buying power he has sustained any loss whatever." Congress having withdrawn gold from circulation, it was unascertained what the new gold dollar would be worth to plaintiff in the "domestic and restricted market." He had not proved that, and as he had sued for damages for violation of contract, he failed for want of proof.
5. Perry v. United States, 294 U. S. 330.

---

143

Dissenting Justices found the milk in the cocoanut
In the dissenting opinion in the Gold Clause Cases by Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Sutherland, and Butler, this was said (italics inserted):
"The Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12,1933, discloses a fixed purpose to raise the nominal values of farm products ^[6] by depleting the standard dollar. It authorized the President to reduce the gold in the standard, and further provided that all forms of currency shall be legal tender. The result expected to follow was increase in nominal values of commodities and depreciation of contractual obligations. The purpose of section 43, incorporated by the Senate as an amendment to the House bill, was clearly stated by the Senator who presented it. It was the destruction of lawfully acquired rights."
Congress recognized damage by repudiation
That destructive result was admitted by the Government, for by an act of Congress of June 14, 1934, a credit of $25,862,750 was established on the books of the Treasury in favor of the Philippine Islands, that amount compensating for the cut in its gold-standard fund held by the banks in this country.
The fact deserves special emphasis that it was by an act of Congress taking a course of avowed favor to agricul-
6. Where did Congress get authority "to raise the nominal value of farm products"?
This is one more support of the statement frequently made herein, namely, that those in places in Government have generally ceased to ask or raise the question: Does the Constitution warrant this action? Or, does the Constitution forbid it?

---

144

ture, as the dissenting justices stated in the foregoing quotation, that the President was empowered to reduce the gold content of the dollar. In the act the purpose of stabilizing "domestic prices or to protect foreign commerce against the adverse effect of depreciated foreign currencies" is recited. It is not clear why a dollar supported by the resources and productive power of this country could not stand up against foreign money. No explanation was vouchsafed by the prestidigitators of finance who drafted and put through the bill.
A senator clearly explained the trick
But this from the senator who incorporated section 43 as an amendment to the House bill, referred to in the foregoing quotation from the dissenting justices, is to a high degree lucid (italics inserted):
"The amendment has for its purpose the bringing down or cheapening of the dollar, that being necessary in order to raise agricultural and commodity prices. . . . The first part of the amendment has to do with conditions precedent to action being taken later.
"It will be my task to show that if the amendment shall prevail it has possibilities as follows: it may transfer from one class to another class in these United States value to the extent of almost $200,000,000,000. This volume will be transferred, first from those who own the bank deposits. Secondly, this value will be transferred from those who own bonds and fixed investments."^[7]
There is nothing in that about cutting the value of the dollar over 40 per cent to protect it against "depreciated
7. Congressional Record, April, 1933, pp. 2004, 2216-7, 2219.

---

145

foreign currencies," which Congress gave as one of its reasons, without saying how that would help against what.
Secretary of Treasury not concerned about foreign moneys
Justice McReynolds quoted from a radio address of the Secretary of the Treasury to the American people on August 28, 1934, the following unctuousness:
"But we have another cash drawer in the Treasury, in addition to the drawer which carries our working balance. This second drawer I will call the 'gold' drawer. In it is the very large sum of 2,800,000,000, representing 'profit' resulting from the change in the gold content of the dollar. Practically all of this 'profit' the Treasury holds in the form of gold and silver. The rest is in other assets.
"I do not propose here to subtract this $2,800,000,000 from the net increase of $4,400,000,000 in the National Debt, thereby reducing the figure to $1,600,000,000. And the reason why I do not subtract it is this: for the present this $2,800,000,000 is under lock and key. Most of it, by authority of Congress, 1s segregated in the so-called stabilization fund, and for the present we propose to keep it there. But I call your attention to the fact that ultimately we expect this 'profit' to flow back into the stream of our other revenues and thereby reduce the National Debt."
Usefulness of gold clause in American life stated
The dissenting justices pointed out that the gold clause in any agreement, employed by Americans for more than 100 years, "secures protection, one against decrease in the

---

146

value of the currency, the other against an increase." Such clauses, they said, "have rendered possible our great undertakings -- public works, railroads, buildings. . . . Furthermore," the dissenters wrote, "they furnish means for computing the sum payable in currency if gold should become unobtainable." Then the borrower pays "for each dollar loaned the currency value of that number of grains." He would thereby get, what was denied by the Supreme Court, enough additional currency to make up the difference between the value of the money lent by him and that paid back.
The whole case, as seen by the dissenting justices, was stated as follows:
"The fundamental problem now presented is whether recent statutes passed by Congress in respect of money and credits were designed to attain a legitimate end. Or whether, under the guise of pursuing a monetary policy, Congress has really inaugurated a plan primarily designed to destroy private obligations, repudiate National debts, and drive into the Treasury all gold within the country in exchange for inconvertible promises to pay, of much less value."
The President did not guard against foreign currencies
It was reported in the dispatches on March 15, 1941, that President Roosevelt told his conferees of the Press, whom he used as boosters of his exploits, that "the Treasury's $2,000,000,000 stabilization fund had made a profit of $22,000,000," which, he said, was "not such a bad record for what he called facetiously a bunch of rank amateurs in

---

147

finance." The stabilization fund was established in 1934, the dispatch said, "from profits obtained from the devaluation of the dollar." It was the opinion of the President that he had given "a pretty good illustration of the fact that the American Government was not wholly amateurish in the financial part it plays in the country."
What the Government accomplished proceeded, not from its financial ability, but from an illegal and ruthless exertion of power.
Did predatory wealth or economic royalty ever "put over" anything comparable to that? Did either, even in its dreams, ever see such easy money picked from the gullible?
On "just compensation" for private property taken
Were Congress to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to order all of the farmers in the country to drive in their herds and accept the pay offered by the Government, "just compensation" would be given for them under the command of Article V of the Bill of Rights. On whether gold could thus be called in and appropriated by the Government without paying grain for grain, the dissenting justices said:
"Congress has power to coin money, but this cannot be exercised without the possession of metal. Can Congress authorize appropriation without compensation of the necessary gold? Congress has power to regulate commerce, to establish post roads, etc. Some approved plan may involve the use or destruction of A's land or a private way. May Congress authorize the appropriation or de-

---

148

struction of these things without adequate payment? Of course not. The limitations prescribed by the Constitution restrict the exercise of all power."
On the point in the opinion of the majority of the Court, that as the holders of the bonds were forbidden to possess gold, it would do them no good to get payment in coin which they would be obliged to surrender immediately, and that consequently they were without damage, the dissenting justices said:
"Congress brought about the condition in respect of gold which existed when the obligation matured. Having made payment in this metal impossible, the Government cannot defend by saying that if the obligation had been met the creditor could not have retained the gold; consequently he suffered no damage because of the non-delivery.
Had an individual done such a thing
"Obligations cannot be legally avoided by prohibiting the creditor from receiving the thing promised. . . .
"If an individual should undertake to annul or lessen his obligation by secreting or manipulating his assets with the intent to place them beyond the reach of creditors, the attempt would be denounced as fraudulent."
The dissenting opinion concluded:
"Under the challenged statute it is said the United States have realized profits amounting to $2,800,000,000. But this assumes that gain may be generated by legislative fiat. To such counterfeit profits there would be no limit; with each new debasement of the dollar they would

---

149

expand. Two billions might be ballooned indefinitely -- to twenty, thirty, or what you will.

"Loss of reputation for honorable dealing will bring us unending humiliation; the impending legal and moral chaos is appalling."

Related articles

• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 8)
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 7)
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 1)
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT Part V
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 3)
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 6)

Anti Federalist Papers No. 45 – Powers Of National Government Dangerous To State Governments; New York As An Example

TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Although a variety of objections to the proposed new constitution for the government of the United States have been laid before the public by men of the best abilities, I am led to believe that representing it in a point of view which has escaped their observation may be of use, that is, by comparing it with the constitution of the State of New York.

The following contrast is therefore submitted to the public, to show in what instances the powers of the state government will be either totally or partially absorbed, and enable us to determine whether the remaining powers will, from those kind of pillars, be capable of supporting the mutilated fabric of a government which even the advocates for the new constitution admit excels "the boasted models of Greece or Rome, and those of all other nations, in having precisely marked out the power of the government and the rights of the people. "

It may be proper to premise that the pressure of necessity and distress (and not corruption) had a principal tendency to induce the adoption of the state constitutions and the existing confederation; that power was even then vested in the rulers with the greatest caution; and that, as from every circumstance we have reason to infer that the Dew constitution does not originate from a pure source, we ought deliberately to trace the extent and tendency of the trust we are about to repose, under the conviction that a reassumption of that trust will at least be difficult, if not impracticable. If we take a retrospective view of the measures of Congress. . . . we can scarcely entertain a doubt but that a plan has long since been framed to subvert the confederation; that that plan has been matured with the most persevering industry and unremitted attention; and that the objects expressed in the preamble to the constitution, that is "to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," were merely the ostensible, and not the real reasons of its framers. . .

The state governments are considered in . . . [the new constitution] as mere dependencies, existing solely by its toleration, and possessing powers of which they may be deprived whenever the general government is disposed so to do.

If then the powers of the state governments are to be totally absorbed, in which all agree, and only differ as to the mode - whether it will be effected by a rapid progression, or by as certain, but slower, operations - what is to limit the oppression of the general government? Where are the rights, which are declared to be incapable of violation? And what security have people against the wanton oppression of unprincipled governors? No constitutional redress is pointed out, and no express declaration is contained in it, to limit the boundaries of their rulers. Beside which the mode and period of their being elected tends to take away their responsibility to the people over whom they may, by the power of the purse and the sword, domineer at discretion. Nor is there a power on earth to tell them, What dost thou? or, Why dost thou so? I shall now proceed to compare the constitution of the state of New York with the proposed federal government, distinguishing the paragraphs in the former, which are rendered nugatory by the latter; those which are in a great measure enervated, and such as are in the discretion of the general government to permit or not. . . .

1 & 37

The 1st "Ordains, determines, and declares that no authority shall on any pretence whatever be exercised over the people or the members of this State, but such as shall be derived from and granted by them. "

The 37th, "That no purchases or contracts for the sale of lands with or of the Indians within the limits of this state, shall be binding on the Indians, or deemed valid, unless made under the authority and with the consent of the legislature of this state. "

. . . What have we reasonably to expect will be their conduct [i. e. , the new national government] when possessed of the powers "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," when they are armed with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and their laws the supreme laws of the land. And when the states are prohibited, without the consent of Congress, to lay any "imposts or duties on imports," and if they do they shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States - and all such laws subject to the revision and control of Congress.

It is . . . evident that this state, by adopting the new government, will enervate their legislative rights, and totally surrender into the hands of Congress the management and regulation of the Indian trade to an improper government, and the traders to be fleeced by iniquitous impositions, operating at one and the same time as a monopoly and a poll-tax. . . .

The 2nd provides "that the supreme legislative power within this state shall be vested in two separate and distinct bodies of men, the one to be called the assembly, and the other to be called the senate of the state of New York, who together shall form the legislature. "

The 3rd provides against laws that may be hastily and inadvertently passed, inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution and the public good, and that "the governor, the chancellor and judges of the supreme court, shall revise all bills about to be passed into laws, by the legislature. "

The 9th provides "that the assembly shall be the judge of their own members, and enjoy the same privileges, and proceed in doing business in like manner as the assembly of the colony of New York of right formerly did. "

The 12th provides "that the senate shall, in like manner, be judges of their own members," etc.

The 31st describes even the style of laws - that the style of alt laws shall be as follows: "Be it enacted by the people of the state of New York represented in senate and assembly," and that all writs and proceedings shall run in the name of the people of the state of New York, and tested in the name of the chancellor or the chief judge from whence they shall issue.

The powers vested in the legislature of this state by these paragraphs will be weakened, for the proposed new government declares that "all legislative powers therein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives," and it further prescribes, that "this constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shalt 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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding; 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. "

Those who are full of faith, suppose that the words "in pursuance thereof" are restrictive, but if they reflect a moment and take into consideration the comprehensive expressions of the instrument, they will find that their restrictive construction is unavailing, and this is evidenced by 1st art. , 8th sect. , where this government has a power "to lay and collect all taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," and also "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof. "

. . . . To conclude my observation on this head, it appears to me as impossible that these powers in the state constitution and those in the general government can exist and operate together, as it would be for a man to serve two masters whose interests clash, and secure the approbation of both. Can there at the same time and place be and operate two supreme legislatures, executives, and judicials? Will a "guarantee of a republican form of government to every state in the union" be of any avail, or secure the establishment and retention of state rights?

If this guarantee had remained, as it was first reported by the committee of the whole house, to wit, "that a republican constitution, and its existing laws, ought to be guaranteed to each state by the United States," it would have been substantial; but the changing the word constitution into the word form bears no favorable appearance. . . .

13, 35, 41

By the 13th paragraph "no member of this State shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to the subjects of the State by the constitution, unless by the law of the land, or judgment of its peers. "

The 35th adopts, under certain exceptions and modifications, the common law of England, the statute law of England and Great Britain, and the acts of the legislature of the colony, which together formed the law on the 19th of April, 1775.

The 41st provides "that the trial by jury remain inviolate forever; that no acts of attainder shall be passed by the legislature of this State for crimes other than those committed before the termination of the present war. And that the legislature shall at no time hereafter institute any new courts but such as shall proceed according to the course of the common law.

There can be no doubt that if the new government be adopted in all its latitude, every one of these paragraphs will become a dead letter. Nor will it solve any difficulties, if the United States guarantee "to every state in the union a republican form of government;" we may be allowed the form and not the substance, and that it was so intended will appear from the changing the word constitution to the word form and the omission of the words, and its existing laws. And I do not even think it uncharitable to suppose that it was designedly done; but whether it was so or not, by leaving out these words the jurisprudence of each state is left to the mercy of the new government. . . .

17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 40

The 17th orders "That the supreme executive power and authority of this State shall be vested in a governor. "

By the 18th he is commander-in-chief of the militia and admiral of the navy of the State; may grant pardons to all persons convicted of crimes; he may suspend the execution of the sentence in treason or murder.

By the 19th paragraph he is to see that the laws and resolutions of the legislature be faithfully executed.

The 20th and 21st paragraphs give the lieutenant-governor, on the death, resignation, removal from office, or impeachment of the governor, all the powers of a governor.

By the 27th he [the Governor] is president of the council of appointment, and has a casting vote and the commissioning of all officers.

The 40th paragraph orders that the militia at all times, both in peace and war, shall be armed and disciplined, and kept in readiness; in what manner the Quakers shall be excused; and that a magazine of warlike stores be forever kept at the expense of the State, and by act of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in the State.

Whoever considers the following powers vested in the [national] government, and compares them with the above, must readily perceive they are either all enervated or annihilated.

By the 1st art. , 8th sec. , 15th, 16th and 17th clauses, Congress will be empowered to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, for the governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, and for the erection of forts, magazines, etc.

And by the 2nd art. , 2nd sec. , "The president shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into actual service of the United States. . . . except in cases of impeachment. "

And by the 6th art. , "The members of the several state legislatures, and all the executive and judicial officers; both of the United States, and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the constitution. "

Can this oath be taken by those who have already taken one under the constitution of this state? . . . From these powers lodged in Congress and the powers vested in the states, it is clear that there must be a government within a government; two legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The power of raising an army in time of peace, and to command the militia, will give the president ample means to enforce the supreme laws of the land. . . .

42

This paragraph provides "that it shalt be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons and in such manner as they shall think proper. "

The 1st art. , 8th sec. , 4th clause, give to the new government power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. And by the 4th art. , 2nd sec. , "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," whereby the clause is rendered entirely nugatory.

From this contrast it appears that the general government, when completely organized, will absorb all those powers of the state which the framers of its constitution had declared should be only exercised by the representatives of the people of the state; that the burdens and expense of supporting a state establishment will be perpetuated; but its operations to ensure or contribute to any essential measures promotive of the happiness of the people may be totally prostrated, the general government arrogating to itself the right of interfering in the most minute objects of internal police, and the most trifling domestic concerns of every state, by possessing a power of passing laws "to provide for the general welfare of the United States," which may affect life, liberty and property in every modification they may think expedient, unchecked by cautionary reservations, and unrestrained by a declaration of any of those rights which the wisdom and prudence of America in the year 1776 held ought to be at all events protected from violation.

In a word, the new constitution will prove finally to dissolve all the power of the several state legislatures, and destroy the rights and liberties of the people; for the power of the first will be all in all, and of the latter a mere shadow and form without substance, and if adopted we may (in imitation of the Carthagenians) say, Delenda vit America.

SYDNEY

Learn More About American History:  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.  

Related articles

• Federalist Papers No. 44. Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States
• The Anti Federalist Papers No. 17 Federalist Power Will Ultimately Subvert State Authority
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 24, Objections to A Standing Army (Part 1)
• Federalist Papers No. 39. The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
• FEDERALIST PAPERS No. 40. On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained.
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 39 - Appearance And Reality - The Form Is Federal; The Effect Is National

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 7)

English: First Bank of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Thomas James Norton

THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WAS CREATED BY CONGRESS WITHOUT AUTHORITY GRANTED TO IT BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND ITS OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN BEYOND THE SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT

following the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, the next important venture of Congress way in creating (June 22, 1932) the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, after the panic of 1929.

It was fashioned after the War Finance Corporation of the Wilson administration. But the War Finance Corporation had been founded on the principle laid down in 1819 (4 Wheaton, 316) by Chief Justice Marshall with regard to a banking corporation. That is, to meet its own necessities: -- collecting taxes, transmitting money, issuing bonds -- the United States can create a corporation. Maryland, which was taxing the issues of the United States Bank, contended that as neither bank nor corporation is mentioned in the Constitution, it was beyond the power of Congress, to set up either.

Bank Act under Sweeping Clause sustained

The last clause in the grants of power to Congress authorizes it to make all laws which shall be "necessary and

102

---

103

proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested" in any department or officer of the Government. Under that language the Court held that it was for Congress to determine whether it needed the assistance of a bank in performing its governmental functions.
So it was for Congress daring World War I to determine whether a War Finance Corporation was "necessary and proper" to the war effort under the war powers.^[1]
Operations of Corporation not governmental
But the Reconstruction Finance Corporation does not in any sense come within the requirements stated. It was un constitutionally created and it has pursued an unconstitutional course.
The first and most important activities of the Corporation were in reconstructing the financial status of banks, railroads, and other corporations threatened with collapse. Loans of the money of the taxpayees to banks, railroads and other big concerns ran into the billions. But thousands of individuals and businesses of small class had to suffer unaided the consequences of the panic. Whether that distinction or discrimination was warranted by a consideration of the relative importance to national stability of the
1. The argument of counsel for Maryland against the constitutionality of the act creating the Bank of the United States was very learned. The question was discussed pro and con by able men long after the decision, In Jackson's administration a recharter was refused and the validly of the decision by Marshall rejected. Senator Benton of Missouri leading the opposition. In the light of the history of banking by the National Government, with its failures, with its inflations and deflations, and with its operating as the machine for manufacturing debt, one is justified in lamenting that it did not from the first do its fiscal business with bankers, restricting its activity in the field of finance closely to its granted power, "to coin money and regulate the value thereof."

---

104

applicants for loans is not known. It probably was, for money enough did not exist to "bail out" all that thus became involved in the catastrophe, for which the practices of many banks were much blamable.
A dispatch from Washington in April, 1949, said that the Committee on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, headed by ex-President Hoover, had asked Congress "to put the Government out of the money-lending business and eliminate 30 Federal agencies engaged in lending, including the Reconstruction Finance Corporation." Some months later another dispatch said that the proposal had been attacked by the Corporation as an "excursion into the controversial field of political economy." Of course, no bureau will "consent to death."
Reconstruction Finance Corporation departed from purpose
After the Corporation had enabled many forms of big money to recover their financial balance, it went out through the wide world scattering the savings of the people. Loans were made in South American countries and others for the construction of highways, railroads, and public utilities.
Under the National Defense Clause it lies in the judgment of Congress, the General Manager of the United States, as to whether the preservation of small nations friendly to us and favoring the governmental philosophy for which we stand, warrants the expenditure of American money for the protection of them from subjugation by Communism, the openly avowed and aggressive enemy of capitalism.
But the use of money for the uplift of lowly countries,

---

105

and for the other purposes mentioned, is without constitutional authority.
From time to time it was reported that a bank or a railroad or some other borrower had paid its loan, but there were many that never settled. In the report of the Corporation for 1948, the 17th year of operation, it is shown that $85,000,000 was held to meet "estimated losses in collection." If that estimate was calculated on the record of previous years, then its losses of the money of the taxpayers have been colossal.
The spender going stronger than ever
The United States News of October 7, 1949, reported from Washington that, instead of going out of action, as the Hoover Committee believed it should do, the Corporation disclosed that "its loans to business have reached an all-time high, and applications still are being received in increasing number." It reported, on October 21, loans to business -- not to aid Government in its functioning -- as $416,000,000 to 5,400 borrowers, with 1,200 new applications a month.
"The trend is sharply upward," says the report, because the commercial banks are becoming "choosey." That is, they are backing out of the field which they should have fought from the beginning to hold, and leaving it to the unconstitutional occupancy of Government.
The Associated Press reported on November 9, 1949, that Senator Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of a subcommittee of the Senate on Banking, investigating policies of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, said in a conference with the applicant for a loan of $44,000,000 that such a transaction would not be "in accord with RFC ob-

---

106

jectives." To newsmen after the conference he said that he did not think it "proper to hand out public money to private industry." He named three companies which had borrowed of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and "now are being run by the Government."
That is what the corporation of Fascism is for -- to take over private business.
Another press report said that the applicant had already borrowed from the Corporation $197,000,000.
In May, 1950, the Associated Press reported from Houston, Texas, that Jesse Jones, who had for many years managed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, said in his newspaper:
"If you have any old loans that you would like to get rid of, you may sell them to the RFC -- that is, if they are big enough and not sound enough."
And in the next month a corporation to which RFC had loaned $37,500,000 defaulted, was put in receivership by a Federal court in Columbus, Ohio, and at the receiver's sale the RFC made a bid of $6,000,000 more of the money of the taxpayers to get control of the assets of the borrower.
At the same time a committee of the Senate was looking into the loan record of the RFC, basing its action on reports of lendings "to new ventures speculative in character." It is for banks, not government, to lend money. Every youth coming out of school, and every graduate from the assembly lines of the universities, must be made to comprehend that the grant of power to Congress by the Constitution "to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" does not authorize (1) the creation of

---

107

a corporation or ( 2) the lending of the money of the taxpayer.
Government out of bounds will not return
Thus, when Government has once fixed its foot in the door, it does not withdraw. That is a fact to cause grief in the mind of the constitutionalist. But greater grief comes from beholding the complete lack of understanding in the man of business of what is being done to him and to his country! The Government at Washington, having multiplied by bureaus the number of its feet until it is a centipede, now has a foot in the door of many commercial and industrial concerns; of agriculture, of banking, of building, of housing, of relief, of the schools, and of many other interests not within its constitutional field.
Will their ignorance entitle men of business to pardon for having contributed to the wreck of the Republic?
The 80th Congress, after lopping off some of the activities of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, continued it "to aid in financing agriculture, commerce, and industry" -- which are not of any constitutional concern of the National Government.
How one Bank grew to thousands
It has been a long progress -- or descent -- from that first bank for the needs of Government to all sorts of commercial banks in competition with citizens in the banking fields -- to 7,000 National Banks, to the Farm Loan Banks, the Home Loan Banks, the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, the Export-Import Bank, the World Bank, and others.
From what has been shown, it is dear that the Recon-

---

108

struction Finance Corporation has not been engaged in helping to carry "into execution the foregoing powers" of the Government, as the bank was held to be doing in the case decided by Marshall.
As statesmen and scholars and citizens long ago ceased to question whether any act of Government is "in pursuance" of the Constitution, the validity of the Act of 1932 creating this Corporation never was tested.
Irrigation by money of the taxpayers
In 1946 Federal aid was poured out in a flood to States and individuals; 50 million for milk and luncheons to schools; over 10 million for vocational rehabilitation; 57 million for soil conservation (the cover of aid to agriculture); 20 million for cooperative agricultural extension; over 10 million for general public health; over 9 million to control venereal diseases; and 5 million to control tuberculosis.
Those subjects are under the police power of the States, no part of which they yielded to the National Government, as they gave over coinage, treaty making, and some other nonlocal subjects by section 10 of Article I. As elsewhere shown by authority, the police power cannot be abdicated by the States nor usurped by the Nation. In the instances just before given, the course taken by Washington was usurpation and therefore unconstitutional.
Following the Reconstruction Finance Corporation came the Tennessee Valley Authority, the first step in "the electrification of America," a string of loan banks and credit corporations, and many other corporations having not the remotest relation to the constitutional functioning of the Government of the United States.

---

109

How invalid legislation infects the courts
"For the purposes of this case," said Justice Stone, writing the decision of the Supreme Court (306 U. S. 466) on a question whether the salaries of employees of the Home Owners Loan Corporation were taxable by the State of New York, "we may assume [italics inserted] that the creation of the Home Owners Loan Corporation was a constitutional exercise of the powers of the Federal Government." A text writer has already taken that decision as settling the proposition that all those corporations were constitutionally set up!
In creating the Home Owners Loan Corporation, Congress declared that it "shall be an instrumentality of the United States." But it could not be made so by a declaration if its functions were not to be governmental, as the functions of the banking corporation were in the case arising in Maryland. Congress gets power, not from its own declarations, but from the Constitution only. Nor can its proclamation of an "emergency," like that in the National Labor Relations Act, endow it with power not specified in the Constitution.

This brief account of the origin and works of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation shows the great danger of any break in the levee of the Constitution. The flood will go beyond control. The damage to taxpayers and the Republic by that Corporation is beyond estimate.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/  Thanks to the fine folks over at Barefoot's world.

Related articles

• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 3)
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 6)
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT Part V
• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 1)
• High Cost Credit The money pouring into a boom for consumer loans
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 39 - Appearance And Reality - The Form Is Federal; The Effect Is National