On an on-line message board, I stated that the USA's Constitution was unconstitutionally brought into being. This is what I'd posted, quoting part of the USA's first constitution - a document known as the Articles of Confederation (AOC) - and quoting part of the USA's second constitution - known simply as the Constitution.
QUOTE:
Compare Article XIII of the Articles with Article VII of the usurping, unconstitutional Constitution:
Article XIII: "...And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Article VII: "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same."
The Articles do not allow for a complete replacement (same as in our current Constitution) and can only be amended with the unanimous consent of "every State." The Con (the Great Con, I call it) could be ratified (thereby replacing the Articles entirely) if at least nine states agreed - though that ratification would apply only to those consenting states. Which is why, nowhere in the Great Con is any mention made of "the Union shall be perpetual," as stated in Article XIII and several other places in the Articles. Which became problematic before the War of Secession (not the Civil War, since that's a misnomer).
Yup, Patrick Henry had it right - he smelled a rat. Our Constitution was born in secrecy and yet, ironically enough, a lot of us have a problem with secret courts and mining of personal data. Go figure.
:UNQUOTE.
Let's think about this very carefully
The United States of America has held itself aloft as a beacon of hope for humanity. But the plain fact of the matter is, the usurping of the Articles of Confederation was done for the benefit of those who wished to establish a strong central government in order to further their goal of establishing an aristocracy. The Founding Fathers saw a golden opportunity to enrich themselves and establish a dynasty without having to worry about interference from Europe, an entire ocean away.
I encourage you to read the Articles of Confederation and compare it, as I did, to the current US Constitution. You'll notice several striking differences. To begin, the AOC has this interesting sentence:
"And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union" - quoted from Article XIII.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any such God-talk. And yet, the Constitution stresses oath-taking to secure its support whereas the AOC has no such language. Now why do you suppose that is? It's my belief that the Founding Fathers did not want to run the risk that their creation - the Constitution - would someday be replaced by a cabal acting (as they did) in secret. So they included the following language in the new document, per these two quotes:
QUOTE [from Article VI]:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, 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.
:UNQUOTE.
QUOTE [from Article II, Section 1]:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
:UNQUOTE.
The striking feature of both quotes is that nowhere is there any mention of taking these oaths "so help me God." In other words, as long as an oath is sworn (or affirmed), it doesn't matter toward whom that oath is directed - be it God or Satan himself. And I believe this was by design. And before anyone accuses me of libeling our noble Founding Fathers, I hasten to point out that these were not entirely Godly men, as witnessed by the fact that many of them owned slaves.
Wait, it gets even more interesting, since the Founders wished to ensnare the military into obligating its support for the new Law of the Land. The following two quotes trace the oath of enlistment from pre- to post-Constitution days.
QUOTE: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm
History of the Oath of Enlistment
During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men of the Continental Army.
The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read:
I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.
The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read:
I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be true to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.
The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read [in part]: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
The 1789 enlistment oath was changed in 1960 by amendment to Title 10, with the amendment (and current wording) becoming effective in 1962.
:UNQUOTE.
QUOTE [effective as of 1962]:
"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." [This last sentence is optional.]
:UNQUOTE.
It's absolutely amazing that our military doesn't take an oath to protect and defend the USA's land or its people. Our troops, as of 1962, swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." And that part about bearing "true faith and allegiance to the same" is interesting because the words "the same" refer to the Constitution - not the United States or its people. While the pre-1962 oath made a big point that troops would "serve them [the United States] honestly and faithfully," it still says nothing about defending the people. That seems to be telling us that it is the state that is important, rather than the people.
As a side note, it's interesting that the pre-1962 oath focused on this - "serve them honestly and faithfully." I emphasize the word "them" here. One would think, if the reference was intended to be the United States, that the word "it" (one nation, singular tense) would have been used. However, I feel use of the word "them" was an attempt to pretend that individual state sovereignty still existed and meant something. Since, however, the concept of states' rights had been irreversibly shattered by the central government, it had become necessary to replace the military oath with a version that focused only on defending the Constitution. We have come a very long way indeed!
Just to be sure that the Constitution is always to be held paramount, this quote seals the deal:
QUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office
One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States [3].
Text of the Oath
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I wil bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God [1].
:UNQUOTE.
About the "perpetual union"
And then we have this embarrassment from the AOC, which was not carried over to the new Constitution and for good reason.
QUOTE from Article XIII:
And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
:UNQUOTE.
The "good reason" I'm thinking of is practical. Since the idea of a "perpetual" union is several times mentioned in the Articles, how could the new Constitution also speak of a perpetual union that it set up under its own very different terms? Some perpetual union! The Articles spoke of a group of nations (a United Nations of states, if you will) that maintained to a great degree their own sovereignty while stating (per Article III of the AOC) that "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other."
In short? The AOC never intended to create a new nation but, rather, to establish a mutual defense bloc. The Founding Fathers, however, foresaw the possibility (under the AOC) that European scheming might undermine that pact to the detriment of their own larger financial interests. Not to mention, it's always easier to control one bureaucracy instead of thirteen separate ones.
Besides, there was the embarrassing fact that, until the Constitution was ratified, there would be still be states that operated under the AOC which had also ratified the Constitution. Until at least nine states ratified the new Constitution thereby rendering the AOC moot (in those "at least nine states"), it would have been awkward to still be operating under a document that referred to a perpetual union while supporting another document that also insisted on a "perpetual [though radically different] union." And suppose only 9 states had ratified the new Constitution, the remaining 4 would have been stuck with the AOC and its high preaching of a "perpetual union." Having two groups of states, each claiming to be a "perpetual union" though operating under different constitutions, would have made for quite a few uncomfortable moments during aristocratic gatherings. And that is why the "perpetual union" statement wasn't included in the Constitution.
And why does all this matter?
It's easy for USA's citizens to feel superior to the Egyptians who had ratified their own rather convoluted and lengthy mess of a constitution. Not to mention, superior to the European Union which so far has met resistance in attempts to ratify its own constitution. However, before we start talking about our mission from God and how much the Holy One smiles upon the fortunes of our union, it's best to put things in perspective by pointing out the realities of the past. Only by doing that, can we squarely face the fact that the Founding Fathers had motives which were not entirely pure. And that will help us shed an attachment to a document which a lot of USAers insist, for no good reason, can never be replaced.
It can be and it should.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
"It's always a mistake to presume that God endorses a human enterprise; an even bigger mistake to believe there ever was a God of the Creation. To this day, humanity suffers from the hubris of the Abrahamists. Yet there is still hope."
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment