Intent...

The intent of law is wholly the reason behind it. Over the years that my Country has been in existence, slowly, ever so slowly we have moved from intent of it's founder and framers to intent of the here and now. Once we was a Country of true freedom for all. Many will say that isn't true because of slavery. In part that is true but also in part that isn't true. In the beginning my Country had more white slaves then black. They were indentured slaves, many of them for years at a time, this was true for black slaves also. In time they regained their freedom. I'm not making a case of this being right, it is for sure wrong to enslave anyone for any amount of time. I'm just pointing out the truth of the matter. Some will point that woman had no rights, this is also not true. Ladies that were land owners also had the right to vote and bank.

During our founding there was indeed a fight over what is true freedom. The Federalist v Anti-federalist was the fight in every news paper across the 13 colonies. James Madison (28 papers: 10, 14, 37-58 and 62-63) and Alexander Hamilton (52 papers: 1, 6-9, 11-13, 15-36, 59-61, and 65-85) wrote most of the Federalist Papers, but John Jay wrote papers 2-5 (Foreign Affairs) and 64 (on the Senate). All of the essays were signed Publius and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison wrote 28, and John Jay contributed the remaining five. And here we find intent of the law. In order to find intent we must move backwards in history. If you don't look for intent you base law in opinion only.
If law is based on opinion the opinion varies and after time, as we have now, intent is truly lost in time.

Now we have judges who sit and make pronouncements that have nothing to do with law at all, or worse they make law that is not even based on our law at all. For example they base law in international law, a breach of contract with our own rule of law the U.S. Constitution. Or they have a biased opinion on a subject and their personality is interjected into a law, which is another breach of contract.

The founders and framers of our Constitution borrowed from Greek example of Democracy for the states. They also borrowed from Rome in the form of a Republic for the governance of all the states. This would be the first of many checks and balances that ultimately in the end leaves the people themselves in charge of their own affairs and in charge of the government.

So, if we look back in history to find the start of law that this Country was founded on, we find that our law is based on Christian morals. There are countless quotes that does give us the intent of the founders and framers. I will not post them all but I must post a few. "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President. "The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind." Benjamin Rush signer of the Declaration of Independence. "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice

You may be asking yourself that if this Country was founded on Christian morals how can slavery be part of it? I would have to say that is a good question. There was a fight over that also. If slaves were counted as full people the south would have gained more Representatives in both Houses, the south didn't really think of them as people, they thought of them as property. Yes, there was slavery in the north too, however most of the people in the north were not slave owners. Also, if the southern states wanted to call property [humans] but not tax them and on top of that count them for representation the north wanted to tax them and call a horse and a chair property and use that as a means for representation too. Ergo the 3/5ths compromise. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were very much against slavery. Jefferson, also in his heart of hearts was a slave owner but later in life against slavery had a plan inside of the plan, knowingly he added that importation of slavery would stop in 1808, and a very smart man he was. He counted on that year being his last year in office as President. He didn't count on his plan being lost. This set the stage for our civil war in the 1860's.

What is a human person? This was the question at that time. There was reason and people who wanted to end slavery right then and were itching for that fight. We had just gained our freedom and a civil war at that time would have opened us up for a loss right after the big win. The fight had to wait. Was making the black man wait for their true freedom the right thing to do? In my opinion, no.

Intent of law is the only thing that matters. And intent can only be found here.

"Sam" Dred Scott was a slave to a Army Doctor named John Emerson, who lived in the deep south, early 1830's. As an army personal he was moved around a lot. He was moved to Illinois and later the Wisconsin Territories. In both places slavery was not allowed. After the death of Peter Blow the slave Scott did his best to buy his freedom from the sidow of Blow. She denied him his freedom so he sues in court. He lost the first attempt and tried again. The second time he won but it was overturned by Missouri State Supreme Court.

After 11 years of battle the case makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney said that the black man has no rights..."They (the black man) had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." At this time one can point backwards in time to the 3/5ths clause and see where all of this could have been avoided. However, ignorance and arrogance do indeed walk hand in hand, and back then as it is now money talks and bull crap walks. What is a human being was glazed over, what is freedom was ignored, and seven of the nine judges agreed. Where was the Bible and God's law? Back then as it is now there was disagreement as to what is Biblical. Clearly, the plight of the Jews and their slavery should have told us where God was in this matter. But no, virtue and morals was not something the seven looked at.

The decision also doomed the Missouri Compromise (which had allowed Scott to sample freedom in Illinois and Wisconsin) was unconstitutional, and that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery. This was the death nail and final insult to the Christian who stood against slavery. Yes, it was the Christian person who cried out for freedom for the black people who lived in our nation, white Christians who had real morals and understood virtue. No law came to their aid, no understanding came from the south. So, it was just a matter of time till the real Christian came to understand that only war against neighbor would free the black man.

It was at this time a new Political Party was formed, mainly because the people seen no virtue from the two Political Parties in power at the time due to slavery. The Country was split almost 50/50 on the issue of slavery.

I can and will draw paraells to today. Abortion, it was up to the states at first to allow it or disallow it. It went to the court system. Universal health care, it was up to the states and that went to the court system too. Due to poor and spineless readings of our Constitution and it's intent we get laws that are indeed Unconstitutional and leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the Christian who has correct morals. A child is a child, unborn or born. And the care of the poor is up to the states via the tenth Amendment, not the federal government. Our debt is up to 100,000$ per person and 200,000$ per family and almost all of this spending out outside of Constitutional.

At this time a new Political Party is being formed, The Constitution Party of the United States of America. It's because the people see no virtue from the two in power. This is an attempt to avoid, just like in the time of slavery, war. I cannot tell you in all honesty that war can be avoided. But it is our right to form the party and advance the correct thinking and intent of our laws. To say otherwise is a lie. To do otherwise would be a sin. To not make the attempt would be cowardice. This Country has killed people in other Countries without Just Cause. This Country has made a mockery out of freedom. This Country has shown the rest of the world what fools we are. And when I say, this Country; I'm pointing at the elected and judicial branch, not the population.

If true freedom is to ring once again in this Country it will come from the people, not the government. If we are to be the correct example to the rest of the world it will be by example from the people themselves, not the reflection of the elected in our Country. If the rest of the world is looking for example in law for themselves, do not look at us at this point in time, wait. Wait till "We the People" reestablish ourselves as the rightful leaders in our lands, then, look to us and we will extend our hand in friendship and in trade.

Check out the date, lol!

© 2002 - Citizens for a Sound Economy

So much for that then :-)