The Organic Constitution
by Brent Johnson
Hardly a day passes by without an American journalist writing about, or a broadcaster speaking out against violations of rights protected by the Constitution. It appears that the constitutional guarantees established at the founding of our great country are being ignored by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of government. Violations of constitutional prohibitions and protections seem to occur on all levels of government.
However, the courts tend to refrain from imposing penalties against those accused of constitutional violations. More often than not, judicial officials refuse to recognize constitutional protections of accused parties. Judges have even gone so far as to say in open court that "the constitution does not apply in these matters." When were judges given the authority to determine when and if the Constitution shall apply to matters of law? Why do studied, learned people differ to such a great extent when it comes to understanding the meaning of the state and federal constitutions?
The logical answer is that those people making such determinations are operating - either intentionally or through ignorance - from a different understanding of what the Constitution actually is, and therefore the conclusions they reach are necessarily incorrect. This confusion occurs because over the years our constitutions have been amended and re-written, often without following proper Due Process of Law. The only way to reach a proper understanding on constitutional issues is to go back to the organic constitutions, the original versions of the state and federal constitutions.
For example, the Kentucky Legal Research Foundation conducted an extensive study into the history of their state's constitution. What they found is mind-boggling. The original 1791 and subsequent 1799 Kentucky constitutions were signed by delegates. The organic constitution of Kentucky contained a forever clause that prohibited the government from ever making any laws affecting the right of the people to carry, own, and bear arms for their own protection and in defense against government tyranny. This constitutional prohibition was to remain in place forever. Yet, with the 1850 version of the Kentucky constitution, which was not signed by any delegates, the forever clause had been changed! Over the years and with subsequent "versions" of the Kentucky constitution, the forever clause has been transformed into a "suggestion" that people have a "right" to bear arms. That is not the way the constitution was originally written. So, who had the authority to change the Kentucky constitution?
Since the constitution - state or federal - is a document of negative authority, meaning that if a power or authority is not specifically delegated to government in the constitution, then that same power or authority is specifically withheld from government. Further, all government officials are creations of the constitution, since the constitution lays down the structure of the government itself. So the question we should ask is, from where did any government officials obtain lawful authority to change the constitution that created those same officials in the first place? Lacking authority to alter the constitution means that any such alterations are invalid, as if they never occurred.
It is for this reason that we must look to the organic constitutions of the states and federal government in order to come to a clear understanding of the way that government is supposed to operate. Such determinations cannot and should not be left to members of the judiciary, who are after all "creations" of the constitution. It goes without saying (or it should, at least) that the "creation" cannot take control over the "creator." The constitution is the "creator" and government officials are the "creation."
The Federal Constitution
The federal Constitution was written to chain down the beast that our Founding Fathers knew to be government. Thomas Paine, considered by many to be the true "father of our country", wrote that "government, even at its very best, is a necessary evil." Our founders considered government to be evil. Not our friend but our enemy. George Washington said of government, "government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Our founders knew that the only way to guarantee a just government was to enforce the prohibitions laid down in the federal Constitution.
Over the years, the United States Constitution has gone through many changes. However, many of the Amendments to the Constitution have been unlawfully implemented. For example, the Seventeenth Amendment made Senator an elected office. Prior to the "ratification" of this Amendment, Senators were appointed by the Governor of each state, to represent the interests of the state. When the interests of the people (through the House of Representatives) were in harmony with the interests of the state (through the Senate), then a federal law would be born (if signed by the President). The Seventeenth Amendment changed that, making Senator an elected position.
But the original seven Articles contained in the Constitution, which establish the structure of the federal government, contain a provision that "No state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, without its consent." This means that the Seventeenth Amendment required unanimous approval in order to become law. It did not receive it. Therefore, the Seventeenth Amendment is not law. Therefore, every sitting Senator is unconstitutionally in office and therefore has no valid claim to the authority of that office.
The Fourteenth Amendment
Probably the most blatant affront to the freedoms of the American people is the so-called "ratification" of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the War Between the States was over, the Union military forced the confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, threatening them with having their duly elected legislature unseated by force if they did not comply. Strangely, New Jersey was one of the states so coerced, because their legislature was opposed to ratification of the Amendment. Proof of this remarkable series of events can be found in the Congressional Record, 90th Congress, First Session, Volume 113, Part 12, June 12-20, 1967, pages 15,641-15,646. The Fourteenth Amendment was never lawfully ratified and therefore cannot be construed as valid law today.
However, there are those who would say that the Fourteenth Amendment provides safeguards and security for the people against discrimination, abuse, and violations of American Citizens by other American Citizens. The problem with this argument is that the Constitution - federal or state - is the authority of the law for the government. It does not represent the law for the American people. If one American violates the property or liberty of another, then the law already has provisions to correct the injustice. The Constitution exists to prevent government from overstepping its established limitations. The Constitution protects Citizens from violations by government of their natural, Creator-endowed rights.
Rights Come from a Higher Source than Government
Natural rights originate from a source superior to government. In America, government exists "... to secure these rights..." (Declaration of Independence, 1776), not regulate them. The Fourteenth Amendment established a federal (United States) citizen (note the small "c"), to whom Congress would grant civil "rights". The problem is that Congress, the creation of the Constitution, has no power to grant "rights" but only "privileges." It is a precept in law that "acceptance of a privilege always incurs a liability." In other words, if Congress grants you "rights" then Congress can control the exercise of those same "rights." It's ironic that the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ostensibly written to provide protections for the newly freed slaves, actually served to place them in servitude to Congress.
The Fourteenth Amendment, whatever its benefits, carries with it too great a cost. The price that Fourteenth Amendment citizens pay in order to receive the benefits of U.S. citizenship is a waiver of their natural rights. For this reason, all true Patriots must give back their United States identification number (SSN), and stop accepting government benefit programs (e.g. social security, welfare, food stamps, student loans, etc.). This is the proper way to re-establish yourself as an American Citizen, with all of your unalienable rights intact. Only then can you truly live free, as our Founding Fathers envisioned freedom. Only then can you wield the Constitution - state or federal - to keep your public servants in their proper places, only exercising their proper, limited authority, as established in the state and federal organic constitutions.
Only then can you claim your birthright - more valuable than any other - as a Free Being.
Hardly a day passes by without an American journalist writing about, or a broadcaster speaking out against violations of rights protected by the Constitution. It appears that the constitutional guarantees established at the founding of our great country are being ignored by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of government. Violations of constitutional prohibitions and protections seem to occur on all levels of government.
However, the courts tend to refrain from imposing penalties against those accused of constitutional violations. More often than not, judicial officials refuse to recognize constitutional protections of accused parties. Judges have even gone so far as to say in open court that "the constitution does not apply in these matters." When were judges given the authority to determine when and if the Constitution shall apply to matters of law? Why do studied, learned people differ to such a great extent when it comes to understanding the meaning of the state and federal constitutions?
The logical answer is that those people making such determinations are operating - either intentionally or through ignorance - from a different understanding of what the Constitution actually is, and therefore the conclusions they reach are necessarily incorrect. This confusion occurs because over the years our constitutions have been amended and re-written, often without following proper Due Process of Law. The only way to reach a proper understanding on constitutional issues is to go back to the organic constitutions, the original versions of the state and federal constitutions.
For example, the Kentucky Legal Research Foundation conducted an extensive study into the history of their state's constitution. What they found is mind-boggling. The original 1791 and subsequent 1799 Kentucky constitutions were signed by delegates. The organic constitution of Kentucky contained a forever clause that prohibited the government from ever making any laws affecting the right of the people to carry, own, and bear arms for their own protection and in defense against government tyranny. This constitutional prohibition was to remain in place forever. Yet, with the 1850 version of the Kentucky constitution, which was not signed by any delegates, the forever clause had been changed! Over the years and with subsequent "versions" of the Kentucky constitution, the forever clause has been transformed into a "suggestion" that people have a "right" to bear arms. That is not the way the constitution was originally written. So, who had the authority to change the Kentucky constitution?
Since the constitution - state or federal - is a document of negative authority, meaning that if a power or authority is not specifically delegated to government in the constitution, then that same power or authority is specifically withheld from government. Further, all government officials are creations of the constitution, since the constitution lays down the structure of the government itself. So the question we should ask is, from where did any government officials obtain lawful authority to change the constitution that created those same officials in the first place? Lacking authority to alter the constitution means that any such alterations are invalid, as if they never occurred.
It is for this reason that we must look to the organic constitutions of the states and federal government in order to come to a clear understanding of the way that government is supposed to operate. Such determinations cannot and should not be left to members of the judiciary, who are after all "creations" of the constitution. It goes without saying (or it should, at least) that the "creation" cannot take control over the "creator." The constitution is the "creator" and government officials are the "creation."
The Federal Constitution
The federal Constitution was written to chain down the beast that our Founding Fathers knew to be government. Thomas Paine, considered by many to be the true "father of our country", wrote that "government, even at its very best, is a necessary evil." Our founders considered government to be evil. Not our friend but our enemy. George Washington said of government, "government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Our founders knew that the only way to guarantee a just government was to enforce the prohibitions laid down in the federal Constitution.
Over the years, the United States Constitution has gone through many changes. However, many of the Amendments to the Constitution have been unlawfully implemented. For example, the Seventeenth Amendment made Senator an elected office. Prior to the "ratification" of this Amendment, Senators were appointed by the Governor of each state, to represent the interests of the state. When the interests of the people (through the House of Representatives) were in harmony with the interests of the state (through the Senate), then a federal law would be born (if signed by the President). The Seventeenth Amendment changed that, making Senator an elected position.
But the original seven Articles contained in the Constitution, which establish the structure of the federal government, contain a provision that "No state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, without its consent." This means that the Seventeenth Amendment required unanimous approval in order to become law. It did not receive it. Therefore, the Seventeenth Amendment is not law. Therefore, every sitting Senator is unconstitutionally in office and therefore has no valid claim to the authority of that office.
The Fourteenth Amendment
Probably the most blatant affront to the freedoms of the American people is the so-called "ratification" of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the War Between the States was over, the Union military forced the confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, threatening them with having their duly elected legislature unseated by force if they did not comply. Strangely, New Jersey was one of the states so coerced, because their legislature was opposed to ratification of the Amendment. Proof of this remarkable series of events can be found in the Congressional Record, 90th Congress, First Session, Volume 113, Part 12, June 12-20, 1967, pages 15,641-15,646. The Fourteenth Amendment was never lawfully ratified and therefore cannot be construed as valid law today.
However, there are those who would say that the Fourteenth Amendment provides safeguards and security for the people against discrimination, abuse, and violations of American Citizens by other American Citizens. The problem with this argument is that the Constitution - federal or state - is the authority of the law for the government. It does not represent the law for the American people. If one American violates the property or liberty of another, then the law already has provisions to correct the injustice. The Constitution exists to prevent government from overstepping its established limitations. The Constitution protects Citizens from violations by government of their natural, Creator-endowed rights.
Rights Come from a Higher Source than Government
Natural rights originate from a source superior to government. In America, government exists "... to secure these rights..." (Declaration of Independence, 1776), not regulate them. The Fourteenth Amendment established a federal (United States) citizen (note the small "c"), to whom Congress would grant civil "rights". The problem is that Congress, the creation of the Constitution, has no power to grant "rights" but only "privileges." It is a precept in law that "acceptance of a privilege always incurs a liability." In other words, if Congress grants you "rights" then Congress can control the exercise of those same "rights." It's ironic that the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ostensibly written to provide protections for the newly freed slaves, actually served to place them in servitude to Congress.
The Fourteenth Amendment, whatever its benefits, carries with it too great a cost. The price that Fourteenth Amendment citizens pay in order to receive the benefits of U.S. citizenship is a waiver of their natural rights. For this reason, all true Patriots must give back their United States identification number (SSN), and stop accepting government benefit programs (e.g. social security, welfare, food stamps, student loans, etc.). This is the proper way to re-establish yourself as an American Citizen, with all of your unalienable rights intact. Only then can you truly live free, as our Founding Fathers envisioned freedom. Only then can you wield the Constitution - state or federal - to keep your public servants in their proper places, only exercising their proper, limited authority, as established in the state and federal organic constitutions.
Only then can you claim your birthright - more valuable than any other - as a Free Being.
