Part II: The States Form a Union

Author: 
Curtis W. Caine, MD
Article Type: 
The Constitution - Plain and Simple
Issue: 
March/April 1998
Volume Number: 
3
Issue Number: 
2

In Part I of this article, we expounded briefly on the political history of how the Colonies via a successful revolution became States, and how then in the year 1913, via the troika of the Sixteenth Amendment,(1) the establishment of the Federal Reserve System and particularly the Seventeenth Amendment,(2) the Republic was on its way to virtually becoming a democracy.(3)

In this issue, we will discuss the events and ramifications of the States forming a Union.

Since the several States created the Union, it is axiomatic the Union can not be greater than the States. But, in reality, no longer do we have a central government formed by and subservient to the sovereign States, as was intended, and as was guaranteed by the Senators specifically being designated as the champions of the States.

Gradually over the intervening decades, because of the Seventeenth Amendment, the eagle atop the Capitol in Washington has had one of its wings (the Senate) amputated and grafted along side its other wing (the House) so that our eagle is biwinged on the House side and wingless on the Senate side. As a result, the eagle is flapping around on the ground. Thus unbalanced it can not fly. It is impossible for our National Emblem Eagle to soar again until the plastic surgery of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment is performed and the Senate wing is grafted back where it belongs, appointed by and responsible to State Legislatures --- in apposition to the House of Representatives. The Senate, again beholden to the States, will abolish the usurpations of the bi-Housed Congress and reestablish the prerogatives of the States.

Then, as it was until 1913, the checks and balances built into the original Constitution, that marvelously provided separation of powers to keep one interest from taking advantage of another, will again function. The Senate was given the oversight of confirmation of Judges, Ambassadors, Senior Officers, etc., so that none of these in their activities would encroach upon the prerogatives of the States. Before 1913, the States were protected in this regard --- now they are not.

It takes two-thirds of the Senate to ratify Treaties. A pre-1913 Senate could never have ratified the UN Charter as a treaty in 1945 because the UN Charter emasculates the States as well as the Union of these States and a Senate watching out for the States would have protected the States from being overrun and dominated by and made subservient to the UN.(4) Ditto for North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), World Trade Organization (WTO), Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), etc. by the scores.

It is interesting and enlightening and frightening to note that although the Armistice was signed at 11 a.m. on the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1919, the Versailles Treaty after World War I was never ratified by the U.S. Senate because it contained the Covenants of the League of Nations, which would have done then what the UN Charter did 25 years later --- begin the erosion of American sovereignty. However, 1919 was only six years after the Seventeenth Amendment became part of the Constitution, and the Senators had not yet been totally weaned from their loyalty to their individual States. But in 1945, a generation later, only two Senators (Shipstead and Langer) protected their States by voting not to ratify the UN Charter.

The issue of land ownership is intimately involved. When a sovereign Colony became a State, all of the non-private land of the Colony remained State property. When a Territory becomes a State, the Territorial non-private land was/is to be State property. The Constitution sharply restricts Federal land holding in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17:

"Congress shall have Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings";

This means that the vast "Federal lands" are forbidden by the Constitution. Since the Union government is to have no jurisdiction over these lands, the central government is forbidden to cede control of them to the United Nations Organization or any of its subsidiaries. Senators sent to Washington by their respective State Legislatures would see to it that Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17 of the U.S. Constitution is obeyed.

Pre-Seventeenth Amendment: it was intended that the Senate would be the senior body because it represents the individual independent Colonies turned independent States that created the Union. Whereas the number of Representatives depends upon the relative population, each with a 1/435th voice; there are equally just two Senators for every State, each with a 1/100th voice --- four plus times as powerful. And the term of each Senator is three times that of a Representative. So the control of the Senators was more easily maintained by one or two hundred State Legislators in each State who frequently sit at the same time in one place, than the House can be controlled by the 500,000 to 600,000 people in each Congressional District who never meet under one roof at the same time.

Post-Seventeenth Amendment: Senators can more readily do as they please regarding their home State since they are disconnected from control by the State Legislatures back home, and they don't come up for control by the voters at election time but every six years. During which time they can (and do) create much mischief.

The House of Representatives (of the people) was given the originating jurisdiction of raising revenue so the taxpayers themselves would/could control how much they were taxed --- "with the consent of the governed."(5) This was the way the Founders precluded the "taxation without representation" under which they had suffered as Colonies of the Crown. But since the transformation from Republic to democracy in 1913, all three branches of the Union government have usurped this mandate in an attempt to pay for the 80 percent of Federal outlays having no authorization in the Constitution.

By ingeniously separating powers, many functions of the Senate are international (foreign) in scope whereas those of the House are preponderantly domestic.

But all of that radically changed in 1913 with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution sets three specific requirements on the new Union that it must obey:

1) "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union [that the central government will always be] a Republican Form of Government,..." By this commitment/obligation the Union (the creature) was foresworn (it solemnly pledged) "to every State" (its creators) that the Union itself would always be a Constitutional Republic. This promise is so flagrantly vio-lated today that our "leaders" unashamedly and proudly boast that the U.S.A. (today) is a democracy.

2) The Union "shall protect each of them (the States) against invasion." Which it is surely not doing as regards the invasion of illegal aliens across our borders. And,

3) The Union, when asked by a State, "shall protect each of them (the States) against domestic Violence." In recent months the Union, itself, has repeatedly initiated the travesty of domestic violence and even waged war against American citizens as in the case of Waco and Ruby Ridge.

These violations of Article IV, Section 4 are occurring because over the last 85 years the Federal government has been transformed insidiously and illegally from the Republic it was established to be, into a forbidden democracy. Hence, to reestablish the States as the creators of the Union, and the Union as the creature of the States, repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment is a necessity to again install and confirm the sane stability of a Republic governed by the rule of law and once again preclude the unopposed excesses of the mob rule of a democracy governed by men and special interest groups.

Caught up in all of this gerrymandering of responsibility and authority that is aided and abetted and fostered by the 1913 troika is the enslaving, bankrupting nightmare of so-called "federal health care." The Constitution does not authorize the federal presence in health. Therefore it is forbidden. But we have got it, with more to come. Until "We, the People" put a stop to it.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has been in the forefront to do so since its founding in 1943 when the first wholesale attempt to nationalize illness care (the Wagner-Murray-Dingle Bill) was roundly defeated.

Freedom from central government usurpation of powers not delegated to it by the Constitution is the issue today just as it was before the War of Independence. And repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment is a seminal part of the cure.

 

References

1. Loftman BA. The Sixteenth Amendment. Medical Sentinel 1996;1(1):28-29.
2. Caine CW. The Seventeenth Amendment. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(1):32-33.
3. Caine CW. Part I: The Colonies Become States. Medical Sentinel 1998;3(1):30-31.
4. Caine CW. Treaties. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(2):70-72.
5. Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2.

Dr. Caine is an anesthesiologist in Jackson, Mississippi, and a member of the Editorial Board of the Medical Sentinel. His e-mail address is LandCCaine@msn.com.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 1998;3(2):63-65. Copyright © 1998 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

(This column on the Constitution appears in the Medical Sentinel to remind us that it is the unConstitutional (and thus illegal) activities in medicine and all other facets of our lives that have trampled on and outlawed our God-endowed freedom and liberty.)

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)
Comments on this post

A new Constitutional Convention?

Yes, there is no consensus as to whether a convention of the states can be limited to a single or a few subjects, e.g. a balanced budget, term limits, etc. There is considerable writing expounding on this subject, and most authorities fear that instead of a single subject on the table, a convention cannot be limited--- in fact, a Constitutional Convention--- could convene, instead, that would abrogate the entire constitution of the US and a new constitution written!



You can see the danger now. Imagine the politically-correct, dimwits in both parties, testing the waters and seeking approval from the liberal media, so they won't be criticized--- instead of the well-read, well-rounded, historically-knowledgeable, principled Founding Fathers, few as they were compared to the multitudes today. Reaching consensus, God forbid!

America's Founders were well read, and they based our founding documents on historical precedents of government, political philosophy, and Natural Rights theory.

Today, the politicians egged by the Marxist academicians and the complicit media would be writing a new, "living" constitution to fit the times!

For such a group of gifted men to join together, complimenting each other as they did was a true miracle unlike anything in history, not even in ancient Greece with Solon (600 BC), Cleisthenes (500BC) or Pericles (450BC), or in Ancient Republican Rome with Appius Claudius Crassus and the Decemvirs  (451 BC) or in England with the Glorious Revolution (1688).

Statistically and historically speaking it will not happen again for a thousand years!



The Annapolis convention of 1786 was called to discuss interstate commerce among the states under the Articles of Confederation.  Instead of interstate commerce, the Founders wrote and frame a new constitution! Yes, James Madison had immediately seized the opportunity to overturn the Articles of Confederation, which he thought completely inadequate, and the Convention of the states in Philadelphia became in fact the Constitutional Convention of 1787.



Then it was for the better, but today imagine the outcome, without the intellectual giants, principled men with moral compasses firmly planted to navigate the political waters without foundering:  James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Gouvernor Morris, Benjamin Franklin, James Mason, Richard Henry Lee, etc. Today, although we have a few statesmen, we have for the most part, McCains, Pelosis, Reids, Clintons, Obamas, (Lindsey) Grahams, (Olympia) Snowes, etc!



So I prefer the first method for Amending the Constitution, i.e., specific proposals for Amendments from 2/3 of members from both Houses of Congress.... The other method calling for a Constitutional Convention would result in a travesty of a flexible constitution, not worth the paper in which it was printed, a tragedy, the death knell of the Republic, and the beginning of a Social(ist) mobocracy led by modern demagogues! The hope of anything better coming out, more liberty, more federalism, Dr Caine, would be a pipe dream!

And as to repealing the 17th Amendment, I am all for that, as well as repealing the 16th Amendment and like St George also slaying the creature from Jekyll Island– the three infamous members of the 1913 progressive troika!


It is now legend the AAPS legally lanced the secret task force and pulled its secrets...into the sunshine. It destoyed the Health Security Act.


The Oath of Hippocrates
and the Transformation of Medical Ethics Through Time


Patients within a managed care system have the illusion there exists a doctor-patient relationship...But in reality, it is the managers who decide how medical care will be given.


Judicial activism...the capricious rule of man rather than the just rule of law.


The largest single problem facing American medicine today is the actions of government...


The lessons of history sagaciously reveal wherever governments have sought to control medical care and medical practice...the results have been as perverse as they have been disastrous.


Children are the centerpiece of the family, the treasure (and renewal) of countless civilizations, but they should not be used flagrantly to advance political agendas...


Prejudice against gun ownership by ordinary citizens is pervasive in the public health community, even when they profess objectivity and integrity in their scientific research.


The infusion of tax free money into the MSA of the working poor give this population tax equity with wealthier persons...


It was when Congress started dabbling in constitutionally forbidden activities that deficit spending produced a national debt!


Does the AMA have a secret pact with HCFA?


The lure of socialism is that it tells the people there is nothing they cannot have and that all social evils will be redressed by the state.


Canada's fatal error — Health Care as a Right!


The Cancer Risk from Low Level Radiation: A Review of Recent Evidence...


...Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of firearms.


Vandals at the Gates of Medicine — Have They Been Repulsed or Are They Over the Top?