"Government of the People, by the People and for the People" -- or Not? By Robert Greenslade - Price of Liberty
No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle
"Government of the People, by the People and for the People" -- or Not?
By Robert Greenslade © Nitwit Press

Mission Statement Revised 8.04.04
 
Editorial Policy Revised 3.19.04
 
See Reader's
Feedback
 
Reader's Forum
 
Looking for Health NEW
 
Commentary on the News
 
Return to Home Page

July 30, 2007

When President Abraham Lincoln uttered these 11 words in his Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863, he could not have known they would be transformed into the popular perception of the Constitution for the United States. This perception has become so ingrained in the minds of modern Americans that it is almost sacrilegious to question it.

Since the federal government derives all its power from the Constitution, and that government claims it was granted unlimited power over the lives of the people, the true nature of the Constitution should be important to every American. Therefore, the author decided to construct a simple 2 question quiz to help the reader determine if this perception is fact or fiction.

If the Constitution established a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as comprising one nation, then the House and Senate would be the representatives of all the people and every law passed by Congress would derive its authority from that same people. So here is the first question.

Question 1-The enacting or introductory clause of every law passed by Congress since the Constitution was adopted in 1788 has been in these words: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the people of the United States in Congress assembled."

True or False

The answer is false. The enacting or introductory clause of every law passed by Congress has been in these words: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled." The word "united" --meaning associated-- is a mere adjective. [Fn-1]

As shown above, the authority for every federal law comes from the States in Congress. Congress means a meeting or an assemblage. A Congress of States means a meeting or assemblage of States.

If the Constitution established a government of the people, by the people and for the people, as comprising one nation, then all criminal prosecutions for violating a law passed by Congress would be in the name of that people. So here is the second question.

Question 2-When the federal government criminally prosecutes an individual for violating a law passed by Congress, it does so in the name of the people [i.e., The People of the United States of America v. John or Jane Doe].

True or False

The answer is false. All federal criminal prosecutions are brought by and in the name of the States [i.e., The United States of America v. John or Jane Doe]. [Fn-2]

The assertion in all federal prosecutions is the individual committed a criminal act against the States, in their united or collective capacity, and the federal government, their agent, was empowered to prosecute that individual in the name of all the States. [Fn-3]

If the Constitution established a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then why does Congress derive its authority to enact laws solely from the States? And if the Constitution established a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then why are all federal criminal prosecutions brought in the name of and by the authority of the States?


Fn-1 The term United States, as it appears in the Constitution, refers to the individual States in their united or collective capacity. It does not refer to a single nation. The 1850 admission document for California states that it "shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America."

Fn-2 In my State, all criminal prosecutions, including traffic tickets, are brought in the name of the people [i.e., The People of the State of California v. John or Jane Doe].

Fn-3 In the author's opinion, since the Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated powers, Americans being charged criminally under federal law should use this as the standard to determine the validity of the prosecution. If a defendant is being prosecuted by and in the name of the 50 united States, then how did the defendant's actions constitute a criminal act against the 50 united States? How were the 50 united States damaged by the defendant's actions?

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob

The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.

Archives

The ·2004 Declaration of Independence

The Constitution and YOU Part 1

The Constitution and YOU Part 2

The Constitution and YOU Part 3

No Senator Clinton - Government is the one Squeezing Consumers

From the Another Usurpation of Power in the Name of Patriotism Department

Sunday Was "Constitution Day"

"Newspapers in Education" needs an Education on the Constitution and Second Amendment

If Women have the Right to an Abortion then I have the Right to Own a Firearm

Left Wing Socialist wants to make Minutemen Domestic Terrorists

A Catch-22 will Stop Plan by Democrats to Pull American Troops out of Iraq

Plan to Give the District of Columbia a Voting Representative in the House of Representatives Unconstitutional

Hillary has a Bogeyman in her Closet Concerning her Latest Position on the War in Iraq

Out of Chaos comes Control

Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade