PJ#096 HEAVE-HO (Phase Two)

**wave** · 2013-01-12, 16:27

PJ 96

CHAPTER 3

REC #1 HATONN

SUN., MAY 22, 1994 9:41 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 279

SUN., MAY 22, 1994

SOMEBODY ELSE, PLEASE

As we move along with some very exciting, but far-out, revelations about "how it is", our mission, your mission, their mission, and nobody's mission--I am amazed that you continually miss the point.

As each thing unfolds and you realize that you ARE GIVEN HELP--I watch you back off and say, "Thank goodness, there is somebody to change these things." Worse, however, you conjure and fiddle and do and redo, that which needs NO "re"doing in your haste to just "do something."

There is beginning to be a very large spread "notice taking" and in the sleepiness of the moment and the total misunderstanding of God, help, elders, what to do, how to do it, etc., watch as you go hither and yon tagging behind this one or that one who is willing to take the lead. Why do you blindly follow ANYONE?

I must repeat: First, you must discern WHAT IS WRONG AND WHAT NEEDS FIXING, THEN DETERMINE THE BEST WAY TO FIX IT AND LASTLY, FIX IT! So, along come ones with this way or that way--WHEN THE ORIGINAL WOULD DO FAR, FAR BETTER! The "ideas" in "newness" may well be grand but the facts are that you have never been without the "what's wrong", the how to fix it--only missing was the actual fix it as ones who broke it continue to take, break and enslave.

If I told you, Americans, that the Founding Fathers are RIGHT HERE--AGAIN, to show you the way--AGAIN! What would you say? Would you just go back to sleep and turn to your earthy self-indulgent focus and "leave it to them"--AGAIN? I don't think so, good friends. I really don't think so. Why? Because they won't do it FOR YOU.

REWRITING

Why do you spend hours and days, weeks and months--and on into infinity REWRITING that which OFFERED the answers--IF MAN WOULD SIMPLY ACT ACCORDING TO THE RULES, REGULATIONS, LAWS AND GUIDELINES? YOU DO NOT NEED MORE--YOU NEED THE ONES YOU HAD FOR THEY WERE BASED ON THE NATURAL LAWS OF GOD, NATURE AND JUST FAIRNESS. The CONSTITUTION was ENOUGH. The reasons that it was enough are amply covered, errors of intent were offered and justness was returned where it was totally missing in such manner that, had you continued to USE the guidebook, you would have rectified errors. For instance, had you HONORED and adhered to the LAWS, there would have been NO FACES DEFACING THE BLACK HILLS OF SOUTH DAKOTA. You broke all the laws and, then, put men into high places to continue to break, misuse, abuse and grab, for their own greed, the very life-blood of your selves and your nation. No, brothers, you do not need MORE--you need to take that which WAS and USE IT.

From time to time ones efforting to structure a workable method of "recovery" will quote from this one or that one of the Founding Fathers or politicians, or great speakers--or stupid speakers--but the facts are, you OVERLOOK THE asset which will give you back your freedom. However, if you do not take up your TRUTH soon, the New Order will have ripped it from your sleeping arms and it will be GONE.

I am going to again utilize another's summary of "where you are." and then, readers, patriots and would-be "reclaimers" of your historical heritage--we are going to take up the CONSTITUTION. I find that not one of you can recite correctly, the Constitutional document--AND INTERPRET IT CORRECTLY. I watch as you ponder, toss aside, argue, critically debate, relate, compare and despair while all the interim--the points and authority ARE ALREADY LAID FORTH FOR YOU! We are going to take up that document AND the reasoning behind, around and integrated with truth, intent and abundant wisdom, that which was offered BY THE PERSONS IN POINT AT THE TIME IN POINT. THEY HAVE NEVER LEFT YOU AND NEVER WAS THE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM YOU--YOU MOVED IN AN OPPOSING DIRECTION TO THE MARCH OF SATAN'S DRUMMERS. We are going to hit hard, long and tediously, the Constitution AND the Federalist Papers. [See article on p. 46 for beginning of series] Unfortunately, most of you will NOT even know, at this point, of that which I speak. Well, get ready for some shock-a-roos, readers, the Founding Fathers in great Wisdom are RETURNED--WITH THE ANSWERS-- IF--YOU WILL BUT ATTEND AND ACT. At this point the Constitution is not GONE somewhere--it has simply been buried by the political New World Order. BUT SOON IT, IN FACT, WILL BE LOST TO YOU AND WHEN IT IS SO, SO SHALL YOU BE LOST TO FREEDOM.

I am not going into differences in Space Brethren or energy presence--nothing GOES anywhere, the perceptions alone change. But, NO, we of the brother tribes are NOT all from the same experience or locations as you perceive location and source. We too are growing and learning and responding as we, too, are taught and trained. You move in a spiral of energy--without time or space--only perception. However, in manifestation into dimensional format of human physical, you are presented with the perception and DIMENSION of various "directions" of expression. "YOU" don't go anywhere and it is not time-consuming as the tick-tock of a clock to be there. However, you present sequence after sequence of experience as you ebb and flow in your pulsing universe. Pulsing? Waves? Yes, but not as you perceive it for all is a spiraling motion in perceived "action" or "motion" itself. But it is more as a "piston" which moves neither right nor left but only up and down--each stroke of this magnificent engine (motor) of manifestation responding to YOUR thought and direction.

Do you need "leaders"? Yes, because you have forgotten that YOU ARE THE LEADER and it is your responsibility to bring your brothers (self) into freedom and honor. Will there be leaders? Yes, the SAME ONES WHO SERVED IN THE FIRST, INSTANCE--along with ones who will fill those roles. I suggest, however, that the thing you do now is to STOP, LOOK AND LISTEN--CAREFULLY. To do "something" is not always better than simply doing nothing. WHY NOT DO IT RIGHT? ALL THE ARGUMENTS AND ANSWERS FOR RECOVERY OF YOUR NATION--ARE RIGHT THERE IN, ACTUALLY, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS AS REGARDS THE CONSTITUTION. AND, WE SHALL OFFER THEM FOR YOUR ATTENTION [ see p. 46 for beginning of this presentation].

But what of the Blacks? Indians? and on and on?? What about them? I am not saying much of ANYTHING was right and certainly ACTIONS were WRONG. However, THE WRONGNESS OF THE ACTIONS WAS NOT OFFERED AS PERMISSION IN THE BLESSED DOCUMENT. I AM GOING TO REPEAT SOMETHING TO YOU PEOPLE: THIS IS A BLESSED NATION, YOU HAVE A BLESSED FLAG AND YOU HAVE ALL BUT DESTROYED IT. IT IS, HOWEVER, THE PLACE CHOSEN FOR GOD TO TAKE HIS STAND AND SEE IF THERE BE ANY AMONG YOU WORTHY OF THE TRIP HOME WITH HIM!

Is it harder now than "then"? NO--you have more tools with which to work to reclaim TODAY than ever in the history of nations. Those errors and thefts of, say, the Native American's lands CAN BE RECTIFIED and SHALL BE RECTIFIED--but they too must step forward in TRUTH (not political revenge or greed) and join hands with brothers of whatever races--and march together in non-acceptance of that which has come upon you. Do not expect the change to come as if by a sprinkling of magic sand and stardust--for the majority of the very innocent and Godly tribes will have "joined" the adversary in an attempt to "get something" out of the insanity. There is overwhelming need for forgiveness, love and movement, as brothers in friendship--not just brothers in blood-line who act as brothers who quibble, grab, punch, insult and bumble in your ego aggressions.

MALCOLM-X

There is a mural, a picture, of Malcolm-X which has been offered for the public viewing. On the day-before-yesterday it was defaced by someone throwing red paint on it. I am purposely not telling you where it is or who did these things for it matters NOT. The Jews say it is anti-Semitic in intent and the Whites complain and thus and so... Why? Who is Malcolm-X? It doesn't matter--what does matter is that now the community is up in arms and the efforts are to try to "clean" the paint off and restore the picture before it is "set" and "worthless". Do you not see that the very defacement says more than all the pictures you can paint??? Why, the very paint used, as in blood, is dripping down the portrait and across the flags and symbols--and the defacement itself takes on THE VERY MEANING THAT COULD NEVER BE EXPRESSED IN A PICTURE OF A MAN. If you ones cannot come to see these relationships--you aren't ever going to achieve peace and freedom. May you come to see....

A THOUGHTFUL COMMENTARY

I am, as a summary, well done, of your situation and intents of world government, going to ask that you study the following. This is an address by a man called Charles Williams, 305 96th St., Kenosha, WI 53143. Phone: 1-414-694-7562. I am giving this information because he has great insight into the problems and wishes to "do something" and it is time, for you who are "heard" around the nation, to become integrated with directed purpose. Ronn Jackson, for instance, thinks he can come forth and everyone will rally--and, it CAN BE SO--but only if YOU DO YOUR PART! YOU ARE NOW HOLDING IN YOUR HAND THE POWER TO TURN ABOUT AND TAKE BACK YOUR NATION--AND MOVE ACROSS THE GLOBE IN FREEDOM--OR FOREVER SINK INTO OBLIVION AS A CIVILIZATION--ONCE AGAIN HAVING BEEN TAKEN AND DESTROYED BY EVIL ITSELF. SO BE IT.

I again offer appreciation and gratitude to Wisconsin Report, P.O. Box 45, Brookfield, WI 53008-0045 and the Editor, Virginia Meves. (414-782-4832) Directors: Virginia Meves and John Zieroth. Address: 18310 Benington Dr., Brookfield, WI 53045.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT BROOKFIELD CONFERENCE
WARNS ABOUT STANDARDS AND WORLD
GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION--TOTAL CONTROL

Charles Williams is employed by a Kenosha business. He knows first hand the pressures put on competitive businesses today. He has a son in the public school where restructuring has turned education upside down. He is concerned about massive usurpation by government officials and calls out to fellow Americans to help with "State Action" before it is too late! He was the keynote speaker for the Wisconsin Legislative & Research Committee, Inc. Annual Conference on April 9, 1994 at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Brookfield, WI. Appreciation is given to Ruth Cody, Milwaukee, WI, for her labors at transcription of this speech.

The thrust here will be:

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION
STANDARDS (ISO)

Good morning! It's good to see so many of you here today. How many country boys and country girls do we have here today? That's kind of a trick question. I'm a country boy too--American. This is my country. And our country is in a lot of trouble right now. Our country is in deep trouble, but we have a group here that is representative of all of America. We have many, many groups like this across the Nation--people who are waking up! They see danger on the horizon and Americans have always been good about rising to danger. The Bible says that "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

Well, today, we are going to try to pass some of the knowledge that we have gleaned from the various sources over to you, so that we will no longer be ignorant of the knowledge that may, in fact, save us from, well, for lack of a better word, the damnation that Satan is trying to pour upon us.

I have a quote here, actually several, that I would like to read to you--one from Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill wrote this in the Sunday Herald in London, on Feb. 8th, 1920: "From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx and down to Trotsky of Russia and Bella Kuhn of Hungary, Rosa Luxembourg of Germany and Emma Goldman of the USA--this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development of envious malevolents and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. They played a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th Century and now, at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the under-world of the great cities of Europe and America, yes, even America, have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads."

A history professor by the name of Arnold Toynbee said, in 1931, "We are working discretely, but with all of our might, to undermine the sovereignty of our respective nations."

Mortimer J. Adler--I used this quote in an article I recently wrote titled "Communitarianism"--it stated: "No disorder results when the state requires the individual to sacrifice or give up goods for the good of the community. On the contrary, the State is then only requiring the individual to give up individual goods that are detrimental to his own ultimate good."

A book called The Spirit of Community, which President Clinton was photographed carrying in January, was written by Amital Etzioni. This book is endorsed by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Daniel Moynihan, Jack Kemp and Henry Cisneros. On page 265 of that book this quote appears: "There is little sense in gun registration. What we need, to significantly enhance public safety, is domestic disarmament. That exists in practically all other democracies." (We are not a democracy, folks.) "We join with those who read the Second Amendment the way it was written, as a communitarian clause calling for communities, militias, not individual gun slingers."

On page 266 of the same book, it says: "Our communitarian concern may begin with ourselves and our families, but it rises inexorably toward the long imagined community of mankind," commonly called the New World Order.

This article appeared in the Kenosha News, picked up from AP--The Associated Press--and it refers to Communitarianism and the book which I just mentioned to you. It also used some of the quotes in here, but you see what is happening--we are being socialized, communized and we are being told it is good.
Some of the statements from that article on Communitarianism simply indicate that America must re-align the balance between the rights of individuals and the responsibilities of members of the society. Individual rights are to disappear. Communitarian proponents, such as Bill Clinton, believe that sacrifice of individual rights is for the collective good. It sounds an awful lot like Communism to me, folks. Or Socialism!

Here is an interesting statement from a book called The Coercive Utopians. This is a statement by Patricia Weis Fagan, Toward Detente With Cuba, Issues and Obstacles". It states: "For most Cubans, the progress of the revolution and the promotion of human rights are one and the same thing. The Cuban government operates to protect and align what are previewed as collective rights--those of the majority. When individual rights are thought to endanger collective rights, they are sacrificed." So the communitarian aspect is no different than what they already have in Cuba. What do they have in Cuba? Communism!

I brought with me some updates on ISO-9000 to show you how this will interrelate with business, how it is going to interrelate with the global economy and in education. Before I go into that, I have a little piece here from a news-letter that I received that gives you an overview of what is happening in America. It says: "Our share of world GNP has now fallen 60%, from about 50% in the early '50s to less than 20% today. We have dropped 30 [percentage points] from what we used to have. There are no steel mills in Pittsburgh, not a single one. Our steel production comes from overseas where they produce it cheaper and better. In 1960, nine of the world's ten largest banks were American. Today, not a single American bank is even in the top twenty. They are all Japanese and European." (By accident?)

"General Motors, once the largest corporation in the world, used to sell two out of every three new cars in the world. Today they are struggling to keep a share of the market at one of four. We no longer have the refinery capacity to meet our demand for refined oil products. We have nowhere to refine our oil from Alaska's North Slope, so we sell it for a song to Japan. They refine it and send it back to us--sophisticated resins and plastic at 100 to 1000 times as much. We don't have a single factory capable of building VCRs, color TVs, or video cameras--not a single one! All lap-top computers come from Japan, or from other Southeast Asian countries. Many of our major shipyards are closed down. Our Merchant Marine, once by far the mightiest fleet in the world, is almost nonexistent. Hundreds of ships are rotting in the docks. We used to build the world's great ships. Now, when we do need ships, we get them from Korea."

You know, this epitaph sounds an awful lot like pre-World War II Germany, doesn't it? Strangely enough, our politics seem very much pre-World War II Germany.

An article appeared in Kenosha News on Sunday, August 22, 1993, and stated: "Europe Sets Its Standards", and talking about the processes in Europe, trying to standardize procedures for business, for selling, for economy, for transportation and going to a single system--a "One World system."

"Wisconsin University-Parkside, Professional Development--the ISO 9000 Standards--A Practical Overview." It states: "Ian Durand has served for more than six years as a US delegate to the ISO-9000 series of quality standards. These standards provide a world-wide set of quality assurance guidelines applicable to both manufacturing and services industries.

"Today corporations around the world are building sound quality systems based on the ISO standards and both the American National Standard Institutes and the American Society of Quality Control have adapted these standards for use in the United States. The result is that for the first time a single and consistent set of international guidelines is available to evaluate a company's ability to provide goods and services. To achieve ISO certification, an increasingly necessary part to do business, both service and manufacturing companies must undergo a quality audit by an accredited third-party organization."

We at Snap-On-Tools just had our audit last week. How we did, I don't know. The point is, if we don't do well, we are out of business. As our officer in charge of ISO for Snap-On said, "ISO will not give us any new business; it will simply prevent us from losing that which we already have." I think that is rather obvious. What he is really saying is: "Either we get on board or we are out of business."

ISO is the International Standards Organization. It also is in reference to the Isosceles Triangle of the Greek nature referring to equality. So when you say ISO referring to equality, you are also referring to equal standards among nations so everybody has a "level playing field". In other words, America's advantage is to be disadvantaged.

I have a bill here in my hand--a proposed bill that is still in committee from the Oregon Legislative Assembly of 1993--the December session--House Bill 2458, a Bill for an Act, relating to Economic Development, and it states: "Be it enacted by the people of the State of Oregon, the Legislative Assembly finds that Oregon businesses that intend to trade with the European community must be registered as conforming to the production standards described in the ISO 9000 Standards series. Businesses that are not registered will not be able to continue serving foreign existing customers within the European community or sell their products or services in new European communities.

So, as you can see, even the Legislatures are pushing this ISO. Well, I had a rumor from a friend of mine, from Kenosha, who had heard that the Department of Defense was busy putting in a process of standardization for businesses doing business with the Department of Defense--contractual businesses. So I called up the Department of Defense in Washington and talked to a fellow by the name of Frank Doherty, who is the Division Chairman of Industrial Liaison to the Department of Defense. I asked him, "What is this about standards that the Department of Defense is setting up?" He says, "Well, we're setting up the ISO recommendations, and mandatory confirmation that this be set up in every industry--not only in America, but every industry in the world that does business with the Department of Defense must be registered into the ISO process."

Now he says: "ISO is the minimum standard. There are higher standards but we will accept no less than the ISO." I said, "Is this the ultimate of where you are heading?" He said: "No, ISO is the first step. Ultimately we will move into a process of (listen to these things and I think some of you will recognize them) advanced quality concepts. We will empower people instead of design teams, and we will have continuous improvement and there will be a team approach to everything." Sounds a little bit like Outcome Based Education, doesn't it? Or does Outcome Based Education sound a little bit like what the Department of Defense wants?

If you were to go back and study in the '60s, you'd find a process known as PPBS--Planning, Programming and Budgeting System. It's the same thing. They just brought it back home to roost.

The home base for ISO is Geneva, Switzerland. But that's a ruse. The "secret societies" are good at telling us one thing and doing something else. It is not in Geneva. That is only a front. It goes further. It is actually in--let me read to you right from this article which I received from Senator Kohl's office. I don't see it here, but I'll tell you what it says. It says, "Many people believe that the ISO Standards are home-ported and controlled out of Geneva, Switzerland. But in fact they have the controls from the international banking houses of London, England." But that's still not where it stops. It further went on to state "that the international banking houses got it from the Department of Defense. Washington, D.C." How about that?

So, now we see where this is all coming from. The statement from the Bureau of National Affairs, International Environment Daily, December 23, 1993--another article I received from Senator Kohl's office--says: "ISO 9000, International Standards is voluntary. Don't believe it. But it will become somewhat of a requirement--that you can believe. Given the world-wide trend toward quality system registration, an expert on the issue told a European environmental regulations conference on November 18th, ISO 9000 is an international standard that describes elements of an effective quality system." It was written by technical committees of 176 of the International Organizations for Standards.

Another statement here, "20th Story of Level 1" printed in full format from the 1993 Businesswire Number 406. It says that "the ISO 9000 is a set of technical standards developed in the 1980s to offer a uniform way of determining whether manufacturing and service organizations implement and document sound quality procedures. While ISO 9000 standards are rapidly becoming a requirement for success in the international marketplace, many US companies are either unaware of the standards or have failed to register their compliance." There is that word--compliance. Does that sound voluntary to you? Even though the article previously said that this is all voluntary, "Experts estimate that more than 20,000 companies from the European community are registered under ISO, while only 621 in the US have registered by the end of 1992." Well, Snap-On Tools is very close.

Another statement from 1993, from McGraw Hill Incorporated, Data Communications says: "Boxes and packages shipping from networking vendors now often sport a label that is fast becoming an industry seal of approval. That is an ISO 9000 designation for buyers and the ISO 9000 tag offers official assurance of vendor quality." But how much assurance and what kind of quality? "For those not familiar with ISO 9000's inner workings the answer to these questions may be a little surprising."

And, it goes into some of the reasons: "The reality of ISO is--it does nothing for quality. It does nothing for production, except slows it down. ISO is really just a control mechanism." That is the name of the game, folks, total control! Isn't that what Revelation 13:17 and 18. referred to? (from the Christian Holy Bible). It is a total control system where no man might buy or sell--just total control.

I occasionally go through various papers and here are just a few ISO ads that have been appearing in the Kenosha News, the Milwaukee Sentinel, the Wall Street Journal, and the Chicago Tribune. Some of these papers have as many as nine on one single little spot that I've cut out. So, it's here!

IT IS HERE!

PPBS--PLANNING. PROGRAMMING. BUDGETING
SYSTEM--OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION.
MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES!!!

Now, here is a nice little trick hand of fate. Has anybody here ever heard of W. Edwards Deming of the Deming Process? ISO is moving, it is like a map, and it is a road map leading to the Deming Process. This is the mechanism by which they intend to control. This is it, folks: the Deming Process, PPBS-- Planning, Programming, Budgeting System--Outcome Based Education, Management by Objectives, the same thing they have used in Soviet Russia and Red China for years. That is what they want to do to America. Are you going to let them (the planners) do it? I do not intend to!

Here is a news note from the Kenosha Public Library. "Total Quality Management coming to KPL (Kenosha Public Library) in 1994. In 1994 KPL will undertake a comprehensive effort to introduce Total Quality Management" (ISO 9000--Outcome Based Education--same thing) "into the way we do business." This means reform in how we think, and about the library as a workplace, and changes in the way we deliver services to our customers. You'll notice, too, when you get into Outcome Based Education, and I'm sure Mrs. Herzer will get into that this afternoon, that even students and parents are referred to as customers. Everybody is now a customer because we are in business. We people are children or resources, so therefore we are utilized by business and are customers and resources combined.

"Implementing TQM is not a matter of making minor modifications to the way we think and carry out our work. Instead, it is a matter of radical restructuring." Amen to that because they want to totally turn over America from what we were to what they want us to be--a global operation and a global fascist state.

Here is an article from The American School Board JOURNAL. This is what your school board members across the nation get. This article appeared in May of 1992 and is called, "The Skills for the New World Order". I bet they didn't tell you that they received any information about that or were working on it, did they?

"Skills for The New World Order: New standards and advanced technologies now require all students to master skills once demanded only by white collar and technical elites. The National School Conference Institute had (on this little page--a foldout) its 11th annual Effective Schools Conference--the Total Quality School, Site-Based Management and Total Quality Management, in Phoenix, Arizona, on February 24, 1994. This was just a few weeks ago--actually a month or so ago and some of the featured speakers, for those of you in education, this should be a name for you--LARRY LAZAT, and others by the name of Madeline Hunter, David Langford and Patrick Dolan.

In TIME magazine in January, there was an article that appeared: Standards, Compliances and "write to US Chamber of Commerce to get more information." So I did. I received this little booklet from the US Chamber of Commerce and guess what? "TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND TOTAL QUALITY LEARNING"--the very same thing again.

The Total Quality Learning was about a 75-page book and I've got page one in my hand. It was passed out to certain administrators and pre-selected teachers in the Kenosha Unified School District. Total Quality Learning is nothing more than TQM which is a road map section to ISO 9000 and world control mechanisms. In that book, there was something I found very interesting. One of the things they showed was a graph--a time line--and the time line graph shows the current school system. It shows individualism--everyone learning on an individual basis. Then it shows a time line for the future school--collectivism! Are they trying to tell us something?

Somehow, some of this is moving into the Education System. I'm going to steal a little bit of Mrs. Herzer's powder--hopefully I don't cover too much of it. I'm going to show you exactly where this is heading, with Business and Education as a partnership, First of all, recall just a few weeks ago, on April 1, 1994, when Clinton finally signed the Education Bill--Goals 2000. So it is in place--all the structure is now being put in place. One of the hard pushers for the Goals 2000 is the NEA (the National Education Association), the teacher's union. This is from the NEA Journal. It comes out once a month. A teacher friend of mine passed this on to me--asked me if I would like to read it and I said, "Sure".

On page 31 of the February issue, it says: "NEA Plays Key Role in UN Agency Founding." Which agency?--UNESCO! THEY ADMIT IT NOW, FINALLY, THAT THEY WERE KEY IN PLACING UNESCO. WHAT IS UNESCO? IT IS THE UN EDUCATION ARM, TO MAKE US BELIEVE IN WORLD GOVERNMENT, COLLECTIVISM, SURRENDER OF SOVEREIGNTY, DISARMAMENT--THIS IS ALL THAT THIS IS FOR. We are supposed to like this.

From the desk of our school administrator in Kenosha, Wisconsin [H: Actually it is "Everywhere, USA (and world)."], Superintendent Anthony Bisciglia--it even has his name on here--this is called: "The School Administrator" and inside of that booklet, on page 13, it has a list--profiles of far-right citizen groups. Let me name some of the groups that they say are far-right and therefore dangerous fanatics: "American Family Association; Christian Coalition; Citizens for Excellence in Education; Concerned Women of America; Eagle Forum; Focus on the Family and Traditional Values Coalition. That is what the school administrations are learning about these organizations, and that is what they apparently think about any organization, family, or citizen where great values are placed on God, family and country. This is what is called PLANNED DECEPTION.

How many of you folks scrutinize newspapers and read them real carefully? I have been doing a lot of that lately and, you know what? They tell us what they are doing. They are not a bit shameful about it. Well, I'm going to give you a whirlwind, hopefully, a whirlwind view of some newspaper clippings that will probably really astound you--they are so open about this. Did you ever hear of a fellow by the name of Walter Annenberg? [close friend of Ronald Reagan started TV Guide]. He just gave $500 million to the education system. Well, did they tell you what he designated that money for? It has a listing in here for that: "The initial grants go to the Coalition of Essential Schools headed by Brown University's Theodore Sizer." Ann Herzer can tell you more about him this morning. Another grant goes to the "New American School Development Corporation,"--a private-sector venture launched by the Bush administration and headed by its former Deputy Secretary of Education, David Kern, who sponsors a variety of 'break-the-mold' schools. What that simply means is no-holds barred--anything' goes--except the law, if YOU violate the law, folks. (Ed. note: Actually in this instance many of the State laws are waived so that the new School partners may do their independent planning.)

The third recipient is the Denver-based Education Commission of the States--the primary resource center for governors who are pushing education reform plans. Its president, Frank Newman, who is very handily involved in the restructuring of Wisconsin's school system and has been in the forefront of an effort for results-oriented or Outcome Based schools. So you can see that Mr. Annenberg, whether he is good, bad or indifferent, I don't know, but he has certainly picked some very, very leftist groups. [H: Annenberg is a powerful and rich player in these games, good friends--remember, he is THE one who is always supplying HIS home as a guest house retreat for PRESIDENTS and thus and so--never overlook him because you will also ALWAYS see his name as sponsor and donor to such as the Public Broadcasting System, etc. Indeed, a name to WATCH!]

"Westosha Board Discusses No Fail Classes." What is this? OBE classes include global issues, government instructors do not issue a failing grade but give students an incomplete, allowing the students an additional nine weeks, if necessary, to complete assignments. If they can't get them done in the regular school year, they can finish it up in summer school. If they have no Summer school, then they can finish it up the following year. That is what they say right here in the article. [H: Do you believe the Federalist Papers relative to the Constitution will be "must" study and homework--OR, SCHINDLER'S LIST?] {The beginning of our on going presentation for your study and homework begins on the next page.)

"Electronics firm cites skills needed." They are going to train the children for the specific regional skills of a particular region, according to what the businesses want. Now that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to train your children for the skills necessary in Milwaukee, Phoenix or Kenosha. The skills they need might be a regional business in Shanghai, or a regional business in Hong Kong. So, you notice, if you have been watching the papers, they are now making foreign language mandatory--no longer an elective. Why? You have to train them to speak the language in the area where they are going to work. Remember, part of the Communist Manifesto was the redistribution of resources! Don't forget now, industry has named us, Government has named us-- and just about everybody has named us a resource (people). We are to be redistributed to locations wherever they see fit.

Listen Folks, this all sounds negative. And granted, it does seem like we have an unbeatable battle before us. But we have somebody--someone who is always greater than ourselves and that is the Lord Christ. They can't beat HIM. They tried before and He rose from the dead, proving them wrong. He is coming back. In the meantime, we are to be as watchmen on the tower walls. And we are also to be out in the streets or to be out in the business communities making a stand. We are the salt of the Earth. We are not going to let them win this because we have Christ on our side.

We will win this battle. We may lose the initial battle but we, in fact, will win the war. So with that, God Bless You and keep fighting the good fight!

* * *

So, I suggest the same: That we fight the GOOD FIGHT and get on with WINNING TILE WAR! Salu.

CHAPTER 4

REC #1 HATONN

MON., MAY 23, 1994 9:18 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 280

MON., MAY 23, 1994

PATRIOTISM VS. USE OF PATRIOTISM

While you run on "empty" you are distracted by myriads of various and sundry ideas, rewritings, refoundings, Constitutional conventions, Amendments and other things which invariably cloud issues instead of clarify the foundation upon which your national LAWS were established. There are, however, the Federalist Papers offered under the identity of "Publius" and all were published in, I believe, the New York Times. There are also what are called the "Anti"-Federalist writings. Chelas, we don't have time for you to go about your continued haphazard "shopping" for a "better way". YOU DO NOT YET EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE WAY ALREADY LAID AS FOUNDATION FOR YOUR USE. This is NOT in any way to lessen the value and/or evidence presented by ones who would give their very lives to reclaim the freedoms you have lost and therefore work around the clock to present understandable and workable attachments or explanations to that which you were offered in the Constitution of the united States of America.

We did not give thought lightly to that which was established in the founding of your nation--under GOD with liberty and justice for all as a DEMAND within the LAWS. If there were errors, we diligently tried to rectify those injustices (as to the slaves and Native Americans). Remember, you were working with a diverse group of "politicians"--just as you must rise above and beyond this day. You have the same resources in your hands and an awakening mass of citizens to aid and abet your flow, through the fundamental law of the Constitution--IF YOU UNIFY AND EVERYONE CAN BE GIVEN A WAY IN WHICH TO HAVE CLARIFICATION--FOR YOU NO LONGER ARE ALLOWED TO TEACH THIS IN YOUR FASCIST SCHOOLS!

We have offered a document compiled by Michael Silverhawk, called The Refounding Amendment (See CONTACT May 10, 1994, Vol. 5 #9 p-50). Indeed, we have met with Michael Silverhawk and shall offer help in his continuing call to duty. There are, however, questions which arise one upon the other as readers effort to understand, clarify and define. These need attention, yes, however I shall not take time to do so. I will, though, lay forth the two major paragraphs which cause inquiry. I shall not attempt to define, in 30 seconds or less, the meaning or "should be" of such writings. Ronn Jackson petitions me this day, to do that in two instances, Paragraphs 3 and 6. No, I will offer the paragraphs as they are and now, give you explanation as to why I will not stop and take up these individual subjects which are out of sequence for that which we are doing, starting this day.

As yesterday, I repeat today, we will take the Federalist Papers AND THE CONSTITUTION AND INTEGRATE THE DIRECT COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL POINTS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION.

You' do NOT need. ANOTHER CONSTITUTION: YOU NEED TO RECLAIM THE ONE YOU HAVE--IT COVERS ALL THE THINGS, ABUNDANTLY, THAT YOUR POLITICIANS (and Ross Perot) CLAIM NEED OF FORMING A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. I warn continually AGAINST such a convention. I try to make you see that in the calling and holding a Constitutional Convention--ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE ABORTED (as has actually happened already in the PRACTICE). This is what happened with the formation of THE Constitution. Was "it" for the better in that instance? YES, but it will NOT be better in this instance as you will be basically changing to the Communist Manifesto, The Protocols of Zion--under the United Nations Chartered ONE WORLD ORDER. SO, DO NOT ALLOW SUCH A CONVENTION TO TAKE PLACE.

THE REFOUNDING "AMENDMENT"

THE REFOUNDING "AMENDMENT" is a guideline only for the REFOUNDING OF AMERICA. Where the contradictions and confusion in this document come about are in exactly that which is laid forth in wording--again, language and translation of definitions are the big "stoppers". Example? In Paragraph 3: Defining Our Citizenship: "It is essential for the survival of this nation, for the people to know exactly who they are and be able to define their citizenship." And yet, from the writing in point, one is unable to give exact definition because of the variances in the use of United States of America and "Americans". So, Michael, are we speaking of The Western Hemisphere (and should we be) or are we efforting to bring back stability FIRST into the society which CAN PULL IT OFF BECAUSE OF ITS INDEPENDENT STATUS AS A NATION?

Michael (and I refer to Michael as a generic direction in no way intending to offend or delete other writers who have worked diligently over this document) states in this Paragraph 3:

"The People of this nation are Americans. Only People who have been born of an American or who have been explicitly and legally naturalized as Americans shall be Americans. Americans who establish a domicile in one of the several States may be referred to as American Citizens or more simply as Citizens. In the constitutional republic, Americans are Citizens by virtue of their State Citizenship. Those Americans who have not established a domicile in one of the several States shall be referred to as American Nationals. American Nationals shall become Citizens upon establishing a domicile in one of the several States. No State shall restrict an American from establishing a domicile in the State. The Federal Agency shall establish no special class of Americans or federal citizenship over which it shall have jurisdiction. Only Americans shall participate in public service."

So, the problem comes in defining "American". By this, I do not mean the definition as listed herein--for that becomes quite clear. Is it, however, correct to refer to the United States as the ONLY substantial "America" in which a citizen is referred to as "American"? No--it is not but it was always chosen to speak in that manner. The meaning of the term is VERY CLEAR, however, and ones should not become hung-up on semantics because the "Initiative" in point is a working document. YOU must come to understand it in detail to stop such misunderstanding in the finalized Constitution--but let us be generous with our picking before the carcass is even presented. It clearly states that "Americans are Citizens by VIRTUE OF THEIR STATE CITIZENSHIP...." In other words, to become sovereign as persons (citizens) you are going to have to ALSO reclaim STATE SOVEREIGNTY!

THE POINT IS TO REMEMBER THE CONSTITUTION IS A FOUNDATION FOR A REPUBLIC, NOT SOME SORT OF FASCIST-SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY!

You have the personages, the information and the DUTY to bring forth that WONDROUS DOCUMENT called the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America. You have wonderful input from which to draw strength--there is NO NEED TO START OVER! We will offer those arguments which present truth and wisdom in the founding of this nation with use of this document. It is time for factions, races, creeds and colors to put that aside--we are again talking about reestablishing a REPUBLIC before you get the old one suicided into its everlasting grave. Errors can then be rectified, justice can be again established, Natives can reclaim their rightful lands and heritages and thus and so....

The next major question about the "Refounding" document revolves around Paragraph 6: Protecting Property Rights.

Quoting:

The right of the people to have the lawful ability to own and possess property is vital for a free society. When government becomes the landlord and the dictator of property, the people are not free.

"Allodial ownership and full possession of property is, fundamental to individual liberty. The right of Americans to lawfully acquire, possess, and own property of any form shall not be restricted, abridged or denied. The Federal Agency shall not lien, levy or apply in any way an assessment, claim or tax to the property of the American People. [H: Now readers, this is already covered in the Constitution. What you as the reading public must do is go forth and study up on that which IS already explained, such as the term "allodial", etc. Then, and only then, can you move forward in understanding. We will work as quickly as possible in our attempts to clarify and "council" as well as "counsel" on these points. However, sequence of presentation in this type of "mass" media must take proper cooperation. The CONTACT is prepared to make this paper your LIBERATOR as from Garrison in the days of Civil War in a struggle to preserve the Union and presenting equality to citizens--ALL citizens. You will also be able to obtain help from such as the NEW FEDERALIST and SPOTLIGHT as focus begins to shift around. You have US (WE/ME) AT THE ORIGINAL MANIFESTATION--AND WE ARE HERE IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD--NOW--TO ASSIST. SO BE IT. "THEY" DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT THEN BUT PERHAPS YOU WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND IT NOW!] The Federal Agency will neither own nor have title to any property. All property administered by the Federal Agency shall be held in trust for the benefit of the American People. The Federal Agency shall not sell, give or transfer property directly or indirectly to foreign powers or foreign individuals. The Federal Agency shall not leverage or collateralize property in any way. Upon the ratification of this amendment and whenever this nation is again refounded, all claims and title to the real property held within the several States under the jurisdiction of the. Federal Agency not explicitly authorized by this Constitution shall be conveyed to that State in which it is held. All currently defined territories of the Native American Peoples shall be recognized as separate and sovereign nations and offered the protection of America. The People of the territories within the jurisdiction of the Federal Agency shall hold a popular election every seven years to approve or reject the jurisdiction of the Federal Agency. The jurisdiction and power exercised within the territories by the Federal Agency shall have the same scope and limits as within the sovereign States of America."

Do you not see how ALL nations could make free decisions to come within the label of Americans? Say, Canada, chose to do so; she and each province could become recognized as a State; retaining all sovereignty but establishing citizenship individually under one protective Constitution which COULD NOT BE TAMPERED NOR USURPED BY THE FEW. Your problem as "citizens", now, is that you are convinced (trained through the lie) that that "federal legislative United States" is somehow your GOD. You set up a greedy, Satanistic, humanistic FASCIST Monarchy in Washington D.C. I would suggest you even relocate your national or "general" republic governing body. In other words--STOP DOING BUSINESS WITH THE BULLDOZERS IN THAT CORRUPT AND DISREPUTABLE CITY! Until you clean out the palace (White House)--don't move into the palace where the guards still protect the KING! You don't even NEED A BUILDING--a nice hillside under a lovely tree is more appropriate at WORST. Stop building TEMPLES to Satan and stop paying his henchmen! Can you do it? Certainly!

Now, what is it that I have in mind here? Well, let us "example".

We will take your Constitution as presented and integrate portions of the Federalist Papers to reference the points as we move along. We will be able to cover ALL, but we will also present both these documents, in full, as we move along. If you are eager--we can ask for a reprinting of the CONTACT papers which have offered the various Constitution(s) as you hold and as projected (New States Constitution), etc. Or, perhaps the editorial staff will offer the "journals" in which these are reprinted. Thank you.

Let us example, now, the method of which I herein speak:

THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(RELATIVE TO THE FEDERALIST PAPERS). Chapter 1

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

Excerpt from Federalist Paper number 84, Alexander Hamilton (Publius):

....thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations, "We, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

BILL OF RIGHTS

I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, ARE NOT ONLY UNNECESSARY IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION BUT WOULD EVEN BE DANGEROUS. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than was granted. For WHY declare that things shall not be done, which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, WHEN NO POWER IS GIVEN BY WHICH RESTRICTIONS MAY BE IMPOSED? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights...." [H: Various emphases mine.]

I do not intend to comment on each "speech" for this is but a small excerpt which diminishes "meaning" from the contents of the full message and, realize, this is paper no. 84 of 85 so you have 83 such papers and speeches leading up to full understanding of No. 84.

What is at point here is indeed wondrously comprehensive--YOU DID NOT NEED THE BILL OF RIGHTS--FOR THE INTENT IS COVERED NICELY IN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION. This reminds me of the LAWS OF GOD. HE GAVE LAWS and man tampered with them to SUIT HIS OWN WHIMS. God didn't say to hold every "Sunday" open as a Holy Day. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH DAY IS THE "SABBATH" OR....! So, it becomes apparent that WITHIN the Ten Commandments--MAN HAS MORE INPUT THAN DID GOD!

So, WHO was "Publius"? ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JAMES MADISON and JOHN JAY.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

Alexander Hamilton was born in the West Indies in 1757, the illegitimate child of a Scottish merchant. He came to the American colonies to study at King's College (now Columbia University), and became an early and ardent supporter of the Revolutionary cause. During the Revolutionary War he was aide-de-camp to George Washington [H: An EXTREMELY IMPORTANT person!] and a member of the Continental Congress. He was a leading figure at the Constitutional Convention (1787) and a principal author of the Federalist Papers. As first Secretary of the Treasury he articulated a policy of protection for manufacturing interests, strong central government, and establishment of a national bank. [H: Do not confuse ANY of these things with WHAT YOU HAVE TODAY!] After leaving the Cabinet, he practiced law in New York. His personal attacks hindered the political career of the volatile Aaron Burr, who finally challenged him to a duel in 1804. Hamilton was shot, and died of his wounds.

[H: I ask you: Is it better to use the confounded gun to settle a problem AND LOSE ONE OF THE BEST PATRIOT MINDS OF THE WORLD? OR, might you not turn to the pen and the WORD and REASON?]

JOHN JAY

John Jay, (1745-1829), was a conservative lawyer who became a leading patriot. He was minister to Spain (1780-82), the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1789-95), and he negotiated the treaty of 1795 between the U.S. and Britain. His contributions to the Federalist Papers concern foreign affairs.

JAMES MADISON

James Madison was born in 1751, the son of a Virginia planter. He worked for the Revolutionary cause as a member of the Continental Congress and the Virginia House of Delegates. The leader of deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, he fought for the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Though an ally of Hamilton on the Constitution, he was a supporter of Jefferson's agrarian policies. He was Jefferson's Secretary of State (1801-9) and his successor as President (1808-17), but his Presidency was marred by the unpopular War of 1812. Madison died in 1836.

* * *

What you must fully understand is that no man is perfection and no man is an island unto himself. You broke away from England--ONLY TO BEGIN AT THAT MOMENT TO COME FULLY BACK UNDER THE VERY RULE OF ENGLAND FROM WHENCE YOU GAINED THAT ORIGINAL FREEDOM.

As to the arguments of patriots regarding such things as "Amendment 13 (missing)" relative to "titles", "nobility", (referring to lawyers becoming judges), etc., I remind you--YOU DIDN'T NEED AN AMENDMENT--GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION AND IT IS THERE! You as a nation moved right back under the English Admiralty LAW. You allowed the very foundation upon which you builded your new legal structure to fall right back into the hands of the oppressors of the first cause.

Now, WORSE, you allow those corrupted judges, once barristers, to rule in any manner they choose--according to the bribes and pay-offs--for the Supreme Court of your land has fallen into a maker of laws which protect the criminals in office and on the benches--and you no longer limit their power to the INTERPRETATION OF SUSTAINING LAW OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE! It has become all but impossible to find ANYTHING EXCEPT LAWYERS in the legislatures and as JUDGES--making it impossible to have unbiased and non-prejudicial regulation. These blood-suckers are in there to make sure the corruption is continued and COVERED.

I ask that CONTACT make room to run Silverhawk's "ordering information" regarding the "Refounding Amendment". [The Re-founding Society, 2303 North 44th Street, Plaza 14-2000, Phoenix, Arizona 85008, (602)-922-2803/Fax: (602)274-7247 call for ordering information.] It is going to be advantageous to have such documents established as sound working resources. As a matter of fact, since you have all those "AMENDMENTS" attached to suit the needs of the politicians--GO FOR SUCH AS THIS if it shortens your pain and agony. BUT DO NOT FORGET THAT, AS A NATION--IT IS THE CONSTITUTION WHICH MUST BE ATTENDED--NOT A BUNCH OF AMENDMENTS!

YOU CAN RECLAIM YOUR NATION--NOW--AMERICANS, IF YOU WILL BUT TAKE UP THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCEPT NOTHING LESS! GOD WILL WALK WITH YOU, BRETHREN, IF YOU BUT ASK!

**wave** · 2013-01-12, 16:28

PJ 96

CHAPTER 5

REC #2 HATONN

MON., MAY 23, 1994 12:58 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 280

MON., MAY 23, 1994

CONSTITUTION-FEDERALIST PAPERS
(Chapter 2)

CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1
SECTION 1, PARAGRAPH 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Federalist Papers, Excerpts:

No. 45, Par. 9, James Madison:

....The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce: with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. [H: And next, you shall see how insidiously the words are redefined and a takeover of authority through such as "war" (and declarations thereof), "emergency" and thus and so are usurped to finally come to mean: a takeover by the "federal" hierarchy to take from the States and The People that which is rightfully theirs to determine. Just as with "taxes", there is specific authority--needing No Amendments. The Constitution, for instance, clearly states that there shall BE NO TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME AND ALL THE (TAX) AMENDMENTS COMING FORTH ARE, THEREFORE, UNLAWFUL!]

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war [H: Against the "several" united States.] and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.
If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS....

CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1

SECTION 2. PARAGRAPH 1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State Shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Federalist Papers, Excerpts:

No. 39, Par. 5, James Madison:

....The duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard and to the model of State constitutions. The House of Representatives is periodically elective, as in all the States; and for the period of two years, as in the State of South Carolina. The Senate is elective for the period of six years, which is but one year more than the period of the Senate of Maryland, and but two more than that of the Senates of New York and Virginia. The President is to continue in office for the period of four years; as in New York and Delaware the chief magistrate is elected for three years, and in South Carolina for two years. In the other States the election is annual. In several of the States, however, no explicit provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case and the example of the State constitutions.

Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter. [H: now I ask you: What is there NOT TO UNDERSTAND?]
....Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and NOT a national constitution.

The next relation is to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion and on the same principle as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations from so many distinct and co-equal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.

The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the operation of the government, is by the adversaries of the plan of the convention supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the national--not the federal character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. But the operation of the government on the people in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, will, in the sense of its opponents, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a national government....

No 45, Par. 7, James Madison:

....The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for the appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

The number of individuals employed under the Constitution; of the United States will be much SMALLER THAN THE NUMBER EMPLOYED UNDER THE PARTICULAR STATES. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system....

No. 52, Par. 3, James Madison:

The qualifications of the elected, being less carefully and properly defined by the State constitutions, and being at the same time more susceptible of uniformity, have been very properly considered and regulated by the convention. A representative of the United States must be of the age of twenty-five years; must have been seven years a citizen of the United States; must, at the time of his election, be an inhabitant of the State he is to represent; and, during the time of his service, must be in no office under the United States. Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth or to any particular profession of religious faith.

The term for which the representatives are to be elected falls under a second view which may be taken of this branch. In order to decide on the propriety of this article, two questions must be considered: first, whether biennial elections will, in this case, be safe; second, whether they be necessary or useful.

First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration , should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured. But what particular degree of frequency may be absolutely necessary for the purpose does not appear to be susceptible of any precise calculation, and must depend on a variety of circumstances with which it may be connected. Let us consult experience, the guide that ought always to be followed whenever it can be found.

The scheme of representation as a substitute for a meeting of the citizens in person being at most but very imperfectly known to ancient polity, it is in more modern times only that we are to expect instructive examples. And even here, in order to avoid a research too vague and diffusive, it will be proper to confine ourselves to the few examples which are best known, and which bear the greatest analogy to our particular case. The first to which this character ought to be applied is the House of Commons in Great Britain. The history of this branch of the English Constitution, anterior to the date of Magna Charta, is too obscure to yield instruction. The very existence of it has been made a question among political antiquaries. The earliest records of subsequent date prove that parliaments were to sit only every year; not that they were to be elected every year. And even these annual sessions were left so much at the discretion of the monarch that, under various pretexts, very long and dangerous intermissions were often contrived by royal ambition. To remedy this grievance, it was provided by a statute in the reign of Charles II that the intermissions should not be protracted beyond a period of three years. On the accession of William III, when a revolution took place in the government, the subject was still more seriously resumed, and it was declared to be among the fundamental rights of the people that parliaments ought to be held frequently. By another statute, which passed a few years later in the same reign, the term "frequently", which had alluded to the triennial period settled in the time of Charles II, is reduced to a precise meaning, it being expressly enacted that a new parliament shall be called within three years after the termination of the former. The last change, from three to seven years, is well known to have been introduced pretty early in the present century, under an alarm for the Hanoverian succession. From these facts it appears that the greatest frequency of elections which has been deemed necessary in the kingdom for binding the representatives to their constituents does not exceed a triennial return of them. And if we may argue from the degree of liberty retained even under septennial elections, and all the other vicious ingredients in the parliamentary constitution, we cannot doubt that a reduction of the period from seven to three years, with the other necessary reforms, would so far extend the influence of the people over their representatives as to satisfy us that biennial elections, under the federal system, cannot possibly be dangerous to the requisite dependence of the House of Representatives on their constituents.

Elections in Ireland, till of late, were regulated entirely by the discretion of the crown, and were seldom repeated, except on the accession of a new prince, or some other contingent event. The parliament which commenced with George II was continued throughout his whole reign, a period of about thirty‑five years. The only dependence of the representatives on the people consisted in the right of the latter to supply occasional vacancies by the election of new members, and in the chance of some event which might produce a general new election. The ability also of the Irish parliament to maintain the rights of their constituents, so far as the disposition might exist, was extremely shackled by the control of the crown over the subjects of their deliberation. Of late, these shackles, if I mistake not, have been broken; and octennial parliaments have besides been established. What effect may be produced by this partial reform must be left to further experience. The example of Ireland, from this view of it, can throw but little light on the subject. As far as we can draw any conclusion from it, it must be that if the people of that country have been able under all these disadvantages to retain any liberty whatever, the advantage of biennial elections would secure to them every degree of liberty, which might depend on a due connection between their representatives and themselves.

Let us bring our inquiries nearer home. The example of these States, when British colonies, claims particular attention, at the same time that it is so well known as to require little to be said on it. The principle of representation, in one branch of the legislature at least, was established in all of them. But the periods of election were different. They varied from one to seven years. Have we any reason to infer, from the spirit and conduct of the representatives of the people, prior to the Revolution, that biennial election would have been dangerous to the public liberties? The spirit which everywhere displayed itself at the commencement of the struggle, and which vanquished the obstacles to independence, is the best proofs that a sufficient portion of liberty had been everywhere enjoyed to inspire both a sense of its worth and a zeal for its proper enlargement. This remark holds good as well with regard to the then colonies whose elections were least frequent. Virginia was the colony which stood first in resisting the parliamentary usurpations of Great Britain; it was the first also in espousing, by public act, the resolution of independence. In Virginia, nevertheless, if I have not been misinformed, elections under the former government were septennial. This particular example is brought into view, not as a proof of any peculiar merit, for the priority in those instances was probably accidental; and still less of any advantage in septennial elections, for when compared with a greater frequency they are inadmissible; but merely as a proof, and I conceive it to be a very substantial proof, that the liberties of the people can be in no danger from biennial elections.

The conclusion resulting from these examples will be not a little strengthened by recollecting three circumstances. The first is, that the federal legislature will possess a part only of that supreme legislative authority which is vested completely in the British Parliament; and which, with a few exceptions, was exercised by the colonial assemblies and the Irish legislature. It is a received and well-founded maxim that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration; and, conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted. In the second place it has, on another occasion, been shown that the federal legislature will not only be restrained by its dependence on the people, as other legislative bodies are, but that it will be; moreover, watched and controlled by the several collateral legislatures, which other legislative bodies are not. And in the third place, no comparison can be made between the means that will be possessed by the more permanent branches of the federal government for seducing, if they should be disposed to seduce, the House of Representatives from their duty to the people, and the means of influence over the popular branch possessed by the other branches of the government above cited. With the less power, therefore, to abuse, the federal representatives can be less tempted on one side, and will be doubly watched on the other.

No. 53, Par. 1, James Madison:

I shall here, perhaps, be reminded of a current observation "that where annual elections end, tyranny begins." If it be true, as has often been remarked, that sayings which become proverbial are generally founded in reason, it is not less true that when once established they are often applied to cases to which the reason of them does not extend. I need not look for a proof beyond the case before us. What is the reason on which this proverbial observation is founded? No man will subject himself to the ridicule of pretending that any natural connection subsists between the sun of the seasons, and the period within which human virtue can bear the temptations of power. Happily for mankind, liberty is not, in this respect, confined to any single point of time, but lies within extremes, which afford sufficient latitude for all the variations which may be required by the various situations and circumstances of civil society. The election of magistrates might be, if it were found expedient, as in some instances it actually has been, daily, weekly, or monthly, as well as annual; and if circumstances may require a deviation' from the rule on one side, why not also on the other side? Turning our attention to the periods established among ourselves, for the election of the most numerous branches of the State legislature, we find them by no means coinciding any more in this instance than in the elections of other civil magistrates. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, the periods are half-yearly. In the other States, South Carolina excepted, they are annual. In South Carolina they are biennial--as is proposed in the federal government. Here is a difference, as four to one, between the longest and shortest periods; and yet it would be not easy to show that Connecticut or Rhode Island is better governed, or enjoys a greater share of rational liberty, than South Carolina; or that either the one or the other of these States is distinguished in these respects, and by these causes, from the States whose elections are different from both.

In searching for the grounds of this doctrine, I can discover but one, and that is wholly inapplicable to our case. The important distinction so well understood in America between a constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. Wherever the supreme power of legislation has resided, has been supposed to reside also a full power to change the form of the government. Even in Great Britain, where the principles of political and civil liberty have been most discussed, and where we hear most of the rights of the constitution, it is maintained that the authority of the Parliament is transcendent and uncontrollable as well with regard to the constitution as the ordinary objects of legislative provision. They have accordingly, in several instances, actually changed, by legislative acts, some of the most fundamental articles of the government. They have in particular, on several occasions, changed the period of election, and, on the last occasion, not only introduced septennial in place of triennial elections, but by the same act, continued themselves in place four years beyond the term for which they were elected by the people. An attention to these dangerous practices has produced a very natural alarm in the votaries of free government, of which frequency of elections is the cornerstone; and has led them to seek for some security to liberty, against the danger to which it is exposed. Where no constitution, paramount to the government, either existed or could be obtained, No constitutional security, similar to that established in the United States, was to be attempted. Some other security, therefore, was to be sought for; and what better security would the case admit than that of selecting and appealing to some simple and familiar portion of time as a standard for measuring the danger of innovations, for fixing the national sentiment, and for uniting the patriotic exertions? The most simple and familiar portion of time applicable to the subject was that of a year; and hence the doctrine has been inculcated by a laudable zeal to erect some barrier against the gradual innovations of an unlimited government, that the advance towards tyranny was to be calculated by the distance of departure from the fixed point of annual elections. But what necessity can there be of applying this expedient to a government limited, as the federal government will be [H: My, the founding fathers WERE, after all, dreamers--were they Not?] by the authority of a paramount constitution? Or who will pretend that the liberties of the people of America will Not be more secure under biennial elections, unalterably fixed by such a constitution, than those of any other nation would be, where elections were annual, or even more frequent, but subject to alterations by the ordinary power of the government?

The second question stated is whether biennial elections be necessary or useful. The propriety of answering this question in the affirmative will appear from several very obvious considerations.

No man can be a competent legislator who does Not add to an upright intention and a sound judgement a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it. The period of service ought, therefore, in all such cases, to bear some proportion to the extent of practical knowledge requisite to the due performance of the service. The period of legislative service established in most of the States for the more numerous branch is, as we have seen, one year. The question then may be put into the simple form: does this period of two years bear No greater proportion to the knowledge requisite for federal legislation than one year does to the knowledge requisite for State legislation? The very statement of the question, in this form, suggests the answer that ought to be given to it.

In a single State, the requisite knowledge relates to the existing laws which are uniform throughout the State and with which all the citizens are more or less conversant; and to the general affairs of the State, which lie within a small compass, are Not very diversified, and occupy much of the attention and conversation of every class of people. The great theater of the United States presents a very different scene. The laws are so far from being uniform that they vary in every State; whilst the public affairs of the Union are spread throughout a very extensive region and are extremely diversified by the local affairs connected with them, and can with difficulty be correctly learned in any other place than in the central councils, to which a knowledge of them will be brought by the representatives of every part of the empire. Yet some knowledge of the affairs, and even of the laws, of all the States, ought to be possessed by the members from each of the States. How can foreign trade be properly regulated by uniform laws without some acquaintance with the commerce, the ports, the usages, and the regulations of the different States? How can the trade between the different States be duly regulated without some knowledge of their relative situations in these and other points? How can taxes be judiciously imposed and effectually collected if they be Not accommodated to the different laws and local circumstances relating to these objects in the different States? How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided without a similar knowledge of some internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other? These are the principal objects of federal legislation and suggest most forcibly the extensive information which the representatives ought to acquire. The other inferior objects will require a proportional degree of information with regard to them.

It is true that all these difficulties will, by degrees, be very much diminished. The most laborious task will be the proper inauguration of the government and the primeval formation of a federal code. Improvements on the first draught will every year become both easier and fewer. Past transactions of the government will be a ready and accurate source of information to new members. The affairs of the Union will become more and more objects of curiosity and conversation among the citizens at large. And the increased intercourse among those of different States will contribute Not a little to diffuse a mutual knowledge of their affairs, as this again will contribute to a general assimilation of their manners and laws. But with all these abatements, the business of federal legislation must continue so far to exceed, both in Novelty and difficulty, the legislative business of a single State, as to justify the longer period of service assigned to those who are to transact it.

A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative and which has Not been mentioned is that of foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce, he ought to be Not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations. He ought Not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations; for that, as far as it is a proper object of municipal legislation, is submitted to the federal government. And although the House of Representatives is Not immediately to participate in foreign negotiations and arrangements, yet from the necessary connection between the several branches of public affairs, those particular branches will frequently deserve attention in the ordinary course of legislation and will sometimes demand particular legislative sanction and co-operation. Some portion of this knowledge may, No doubt, be acquired in a man's closet; but some of it also can only be derived from the public sources of information; and all of it will be acquired to best effect by a practical attention to the subject during the period of actual service in the legislature.

There are other considerations, of less importance perhaps, but which are Not unworthy of Notice. The distance which many of the representatives will be obliged to travel and the arrangements rendered necessary by that circumstance might be much more serious objections with fit men to this service, if Not limited to a single year, than if extended to two years. No argument can be drawn on this subject from the case of the delegates to the existing Congress. They are elected annually, it is true; but their re-election is considered by the legislative assemblies almost as a matter of course. The election of the representatives by the people would Not be governed by the same principle.

A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps Not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them. This remark is No less applicable to the relation which will subsist between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It is an inconvenience mingled with the advantages of our frequent elections, even in single States, where they are large, and hold but one legislative session in a year, that spurious elections cannot be investigated and annulled in time for the decision to have its due effect. If a return can be obtained, No matter by what unlawful means, the irregular member, who takes his seat of course, is sure of holding it a sufficient time to answer his purposes. Hence, a very pernicious encouragement is given to the use of unlawful means for obtaining irregular returns. Were elections for the federal legislature to be annual this practice might become a very serious abuse, particularly in the more distant States. Each house is, as it necessarily must be, the judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of its members; and whatever improvements may be suggested by experience for simplifying and accelerating the process in disputed cases, so great a portion of a year would unavoidably elapse before an illegitimate member could be dispossessed of his seat that the prospect of such an event would be little check to unfair and illicit means of obtaining a seat.

All these considerations taken together warrant us in affirming that biennial elections will be as useful to the affairs of the public as we have seen that they will be safe to the liberties of the people.

No 52, Par. 1, James Madison:

From the more general inquiries pursued in the four last papers, I pass on to a more particular examination of the several parts of the government. I shall begin with the House of Representatives.

The first view to be taken of this part of the government relates to the qualifications of the electors and the elected. Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone. To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is comfortable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is Not alterable by the State governments, and it cannot be feared that the people of the States will alter this part of their constitutions in such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the federal Constitution....

No. 57, Par. 4, James Madison:

....Let me now ask what circumstance there is in the constitution of the House of Representatives that violates the principles of republican government, or favors the elevation of the few on the ruins of the man? Let me ask whether every circumstance is Not, on the contrary, strictly comformable to these principles, and scrupulously impartial to the rights and pretensions of every class and description of citizens?

Who are to be the electors of the federal representative? Not the rich, more than the poor; Not the learned, more than the ignorant; Not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State.

Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgment or disappoint the inclination of the people.
If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents....

END OF CHAPTER TWO

* * *

I think that through these understandings you will find that you have moved just about as far away from the truth of the Constitution as you can get. You have men who stay in office for 30-plus years and whose property and POWER over you grows exponentially with each passing session. Do you not see that if you removed this longevity of office and desire for the funds in greedy fashion and limited the qualifications as now expressed through "LAWYERS", you might be able to reclaim some righteous FREEDOM and WISDOM in that which comes forth from your unlawful, incredibly corrupt systems of intended annihilation of your nations. So be it.

CHAPTER 6

REC #2 HATONN

TUE., MAY 24, 1994 11:45 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 281

TUE.. MAY 24. 1994

CONSTITUTION-FEDERALIST PAPERS
(Chapter 3)

CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1

SECTION 2. PARAGRAPH 2

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Federalist Papers, Excerpts:

No. 52, Par. 3, James Madison:

....The qualifications of the elected, being less carefully and properly defined by the State constitutions, and being at the same time more susceptible of uniformity, have been very properly considered and regulated by the convention. A representative of the United States; must, at the time of his election, be an inhabitant of the State he is to represent; and, during the time of his service, must be in no office under the United States. Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession or religious faith....

No. 60, Par. 11, Alexander Hamilton:

.... But upon what principle is the discrimination of the places of election to be made, in order to answer the purpose of the meditated preference? Are the wealthy and the well-born, as they are called, confined to particular spots in the several States? Have they, by some miraculous instinct or foresight, set apart in each of them a common place of residence? Are they only to be met within the towns or cities? Or are they, on the contrary, scattered over the face of the country as avarice or chance may have happened to cast their own lot or that of their predecessors? If the latter is the case (as every intelligent man knows it to be [Particularly in the Southern States and in this State]) is it not evident that the policy of confining the places of elections to particular districts would be as subversive of its own aim as it would be exceptionable on every other account? The truth is that there is no method of securing to the rich the preference apprehended but by prescribing qualifications of property either for those who may elect or be elected. But this forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the national government. Its authority would be expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places, and the manner of elections. The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen, as has been remarked upon other occasions, are defined and fixed in the Constitution, and are unalterable by the legislature....

CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1
SECTION 2 PARAGRAPH 3

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
Federalist Papers, Excerpts:

No. 54, Par. 1, James Madison:

The next view which I shall take of the House of Representatives relates to the apportionment of its members to the several States, which is to be determined by the same rule with that of direct taxes.

It is not contended that the number of people in each State ought not to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to represent the people of each State. The establishment of the same rule for the apportionment of taxes, will probably be as little contested; though the rule itself, in this case, is by no means founded on the same principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and universal connection. In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least exceptionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America not to have found a ready preference with the convention.

All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons.

This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid instating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side.

"We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is that they partake of both of these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for the master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another--the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the Negroes COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN EQUAL SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH THE OTHER INHABITANTS.
[H: I am responsible for any emphasis in these writings other than occasional italics. I cannot let this pass without interjection. This looks pretty sick and pretty bad, doesn't it? Well, that's because IT IS BAD and it IS SICK. MAN has never been noted for his compassion and desire for true equality. He doesn't even consider GOD his "equal". How do I know this? Because all MAN really wants from GOD is to give him what he wants--enslave other men (and hopefully, God, as well) and he breaks every law as given forth from GOD to suit his own whims and wishes. But, readers, it is far worse than that--far worse. As regards the Negroes, one day you are going to have to accept the fact that Negroes were first brought to your planet as SLAVES--to work the mines, etc., in Africa. You don't believe me? You will! They started out as genetically altered species for that specific purpose and now look what a sad state of affairs you of humanity have wrought upon selves. YOU will never rectify the miserable treatment of these beloved brothers and sisters--NEVER!
Next, consider ALL of your plights as you re-read the above paragraph--YOU ARE ALL ALREADY ENSLAVED--and paying for it. When a man's property can be taken by force FROM him by rules and regulations--AND TAXES, YOU ARE ENSLAVED AS SURELY AS THE SUN IS GOLDEN AND THE MOON IS SILVER IN COLOR. YOU ARE ALL ENSLAVED TO THE EVIL EMPIRE OF BANKSTERS AND CRIMINAL POLITICIANS WHO ARE GOING TO RUN THE WORLD IN THIS NEW WORLD ORDER--WHICH YOU WILL WORK FOR AND PAY FOR!
Do you see other relativities, perchance? Look at the relationship (comparison) between the slaves and slave communities--with or against TODAY! You have brought the slaves of color into a worse enslavement--with far more insult to his being. You CALL him FREE and yet he is, as a race, totally enslaved worse than any other one grouping in the world. You have reduced the black to the most collectively representative of the heinous abuse of the WELFARE system. The little black girl children are baby factories and you treat them like chaff--not even chattel. Is it different from "slave days"? How? You cause them to work at menial tasks and in the lower end of all wage scales, saying they are either not bright enough or ill-trained. You place them on welfare which fully represents the slave-owner's responsibility to HIS SLAVES. The only thing is that NOW you have all races and creeds sucked into the Evil Empire's trap--YOU ARE ALL BUT SLAVES IN SATAN'S EMPIRE OF ELITE RULERS!!!]

"This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected that the Southern States would concur in a system which considered their slaves in some degree as men when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren should themselves contend that the government to which all the States are to be parties ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property than the very laws of which they complain?

[H: Ah, I hear you saying something about these "Christian" men who would do such a lousy thing to the blacks. Well, readers, number 1: NO MAN WHO HOLDS OR CONDONES SLAVES IS A CHRISTIAN! I care not what they think to call themselves! Further, the slave TRADE coming from and through England--was mostly at the hands of organized Khazarian traders and they were fully THE ANTICHRIST in full force and action...!]

"It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle then, ought they to be taken into the federal estimate of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been appealed to as the proper guide.

"This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not, perhaps, the same in any two States. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives. [H: Right here you have the answer to "how could the federal Constitution uphold slavery? Because the federal government is subservient (supposed to be) to the sovereign rule of the STATE CONSTITUTIONS! The States allowed for slavery--the federal government would have no alternative if it acted in its proper status as a governing body FOR THE STATES AND THE WISHES OF THE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS OF THOSE STATES. Remember, you had slaves and you had State regulations under State constitutions--AND YOU HAD TO RATIFY EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE CONSTITUTION, WITH THOSE SEVERAL STATES. ALSO, AT THE TIME--ONLY MEN HAD RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE!] In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle is waived by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth a peculiar one. Let the compromisingly expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted which regard them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants; which regards the slave as divested of two fifths of the man. [H: Indeed, indeed; sick, sick, sick. However, WHO owned slaves? Who had the power and the financial backing to OWN SLAVES? Not those nice pilgrims who landed and all but perished in establishment of the first days of a new world. The SLAVES CAME WITH THE ELITE DREGS of Elite Society! This was a business, a venture, and holdings of THE SATAN EMPIRE AS ESTABLISHED ON THE SHORES OF WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN FREELAND FOR ALL MEN--INCLUDING THE NATIVE AMERICANS WHO MET YOU HERE. One day you are going to go back and heed the words of your "fathers" and George Washington, etc., for they told you how it would come to pass--and it has....]

"After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property. But is it a just idea? Government is instituted no less for protection of the property than of the persons of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government. Upon this principle it is that in several of the States, and particularly in the State of New York, one branch of the government is intended more especially to be the guardian of property and is accordingly elected by that part of the society which is most interested in this object of government. In the federal Constitution, this policy does not prevail. The rights of property are committed into the same hands with the personal rights. Some attention ought, therefore, to be paid to property in the choice of those hands.

"For another reason, the votes allowed in the federal legislature to the people of each State ought to bear some proportion to the comparative wealth of the States. States have not, like individuals, an influence over each other, arising from superior advantages of fortune. If the law allows an opulent citizen but a single vote in the choice of his representative, the respect and consequence which he derives from his fortunate situation very frequently guide the votes of others to the objects of his choice; and through this imperceptible channel the rights of property are conveyed into the public representation. A State possesses no such influence over other States. It is not probable that the richest State in the Confederacy will ever influence the choice of a single representative in any other State. Nor will the representatives of the larger and richest States possess any other advantage in the federal legislature over the representatives of other States than what may result from their superior number alone. As far, therefore, as their superior wealth and weight may justly entitle them to any advantage, it ought to be secured to them by a superior share of representation. The new Constitution is, in this respect, materially different from the existing Confederation, as well as from that of the United Netherlands, and other similar confederacies. In each of the latter, the efficacy of the federal resolutions depends on the subsequent and voluntary resolutions of the States composing the union. Hence the States, though possessing an equal vote in the public councils, have an unequal influence, corresponding with the unequal importance of these subsequent and voluntary resolutions. Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States. They will depend merely on the majority of votes in the federal legislature, and consequently each vote, whether proceeding from a larger or a smaller State, or a State more or less wealthy or powerful, will have an equal weight and efficacy: in the same manner as the votes individually given in a State legislature, by the representatives of unequal counties or other districts, have each a precise equality of value and effect; or if there be any difference in the case, it proceeds from the difference in the personal character of the individual representative, rather than from any regard to the extent of the district from which he comes."

Such is the reasoning which an advocate for the Southern interests might employ on this subject; and although it may appear to be a little strained in some points, yet on the whole, I must confess that it fully reconciles me to the scale of representation which the convention have established.

In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree, on the disposition, if not on the co-operation of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests which will control and balance each other and produce the requisite impartiality. PUBLIUS

No. 58, Par. 1, James Madison:

The remaining charge against the House of Representatives, which I am to examine, is grounded on a supposition that the number of members will not be augmented from time to time, as the progress of population may demand.

It has been admitted that this objection, if well supported, would have great weight. The following observations will show that, like most other objections against the Constitution, it can only proceed from a partial view of the subject, or from a jealousy which discolors and disfigures every object which is beheld....

No. 55, Par. 1, James Madison:

The number of which the House of Representatives is to consist forms another and a very interesting point of view under which this branch of the federal legislature may be contemplated. Scarce any article, indeed, in the whole Constitution seems to be rendered more worthy of attention by the weight of character and the apparent force of argument with which it has been assailed. The charges exhibited against it are, first, that so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depository of the public interests; second, that they will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; third, that they will be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many; fourth, that defective as the number will be in the first instance, it will be more and more disproportionate, by the increase of the people and the obstacles which will prevent a correspondent increase of the representatives.

In general it may be remarked on this subject that no political problem is less susceptible of a precise solution than that which relates to the number most convenient for a representative legislature; nor is there any point on which the policy of the several States is more at variance, whether we compare their legislative assemblies directly with each other, or consider the proportions which they respectively bear to the number of their constituents. Passing over the difference between the smallest and largest States, as Delaware, whose most numerous branch consists of twenty-one representatives, and Massachusetts, where it amounts to between three and four hundred, a very considerable difference is observable among States nearly equal in population. The number of representatives in Pennsylvania is not more than one fifth of that in the State last mentioned. New York, whose population is to that of South Carolina as six to five, has little more than one third of the number of representatives. As great a disparity prevails between the States of Georgia and Delaware or Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, the representatives do not bear a greater proportion to their constituents than of one for every four or five thousand. In Rhode Island, they bear a proportion of at least one for every thousand. And according to the constitution of Georgia, the proportion may be carried to one to every ten electors; and must unavoidably far exceed the proportion in any of the other States.

Another general remark to be made is that the ratio between the representatives and the people ought not to be the same where the latter are very numerous as when they are very few. Were the representatives in Virginia to be regulated by the standard in Rhode island, they would, at this time, amount to between four and five hundred; and twenty or thirty years hence, to a thousand. On the other hand, the ratio of Pennsylvania, if applied to the State of Delaware, would reduce the representative assembly of the latter to seven or eight members. Nothing can be more fallacious than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportion ably a better depository. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed. The truth is that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

It is necessary also to recollect here the observations which were applied to the case of biennial elections. For the same reason that the limited powers of the Congress, and the control of the State legislatures, justify less frequent election than the public safety might otherwise require, the members of the Congress need be less numerous than if they possessed the whole power of legislation, and were under no other than the ordinary restraints of other legislative bodies.

With these general ideas in our minds, let us weigh the objections which have been stated against the number of members proposed for the House of Representatives. It is said, in the first place, that so small a number cannot be safely trusted with so much power.

The number of which this branch of the legislature is to consist, at the outset of the government, will be sixty-five. Within three years a census is to be taken, when the number may be augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation. It will not be thought an extravagant conjecture that the first census will, at the rate of one for every thirty thousand, raise the number of representatives to at least one hundred. Estimating the Negroes in the proportion of three fifths, it can scarcely be doubted that the population of the United States will, by that time, if it does not already, amount to three millions. At the expiration of twenty-five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of representatives will amount to two hundred; and of fifty years, to four hundred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears arising from the smallness of the body. I take for granted here what I shall, in answering the fourth objection, hereafter show that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution. On a contrary supposition, I should admit the objection to have very great weight indeed.

The true question to be decided, then, is whether the smallness of the number, as a temporary regulation, be dangerous to the public liberty? Whether sixty-five members for a few years, and a hundred or two hundred for a few more, be a safe depository for a limited and well-guarded power of legislating for the United States? I must own that I could not give a negative answer to this question without first obliterating every impression which I have received with regard to the present genius of the people of America, the spirit which actuates the State legislatures, and the principles which are incorporated with the political character of every class of citizens. I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of, sixty-five or a hundred men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery. I am unable to conceive that the State legislatures, which must feel so many motives to watch and which possess so many means of counteracting the federal legislature, would fail either to detect or to defeat a conspiracy of the latter against the liberties of their common constituents. [H: Everybody still awake? If he can't conceive of these things then how could YOU be expected to find yourselves in this position TODAY?] I am equally unable to conceive that there are at this time, or can be in any short time, in the United States, any sixty-five or a hundred men capable of recommending themselves to the choice of the people at large, who would either desire or dare, within the short space of two years, to betray the solemn trust committed to them. What change of circumstances time, and a fuller population of our country may produce requires a prophetic spirit to declare, which makes no part of my pretensions. But judging from the circumstances now before us, and from the probable state of them within a moderate period of time, I must pronounce that the liberties of America cannot be unsafe in the number of hands proposed by the federal Constitution.

From what quarter can the danger proceed? Are we afraid of foreign gold? If foreign gold could so easily corrupt our federal rulers and enable them to ensnare and betray their constituents, how has it happened that we are at this time a free and independent nation? The Congress which conducted us through the Revolution was a less numerous body than their successors will be; they were not chosen by, nor responsible to, their fellow-citizens at large; though appointed from year to year, and recallable at pleasure, they were generally continued for three years, and prior to the ratification of the federal articles, for a still longer term. They held their consultations always under the veil of secrecy; they had the sole transaction of our affairs with foreign nations; through the whole course of the war they had the fate of their country more in their hands than it is to be hoped will ever be the case with our future representatives; and from the greatness of the prize at stake, and the eagerness of the party which lost it, it may well be supposed that the use of other means than force would not have been scrupled. Yet we know by happy experience that the public trust was not betrayed; nor has the purity of our public councils in this particular ever suffered, even from the whispers of calumny.

Is the danger apprehended from the other branches of the federal government? But where are the means to be found by the President, or the Senate, or both? Their emoluments of office, it is to be presumed, will not, and without a previous corruption of the House of Representatives cannot, more than suffice for very different purposes; their private fortunes, as they must all be American citizens, cannot possibly be sources of danger. The only means, then, which they can possess, will be in the dispensation of appointments. Is it here that suspicion rests her charge? Sometimes we are told that this fund of corruption is to be exhausted by the President in subduing the virtue of the Senate. Now, the fidelity of the other House is to be the victim. The improbability of such a mercenary and perfidious combination of the several members of government, standing on as different foundations as republican principles will well admit, and at the same time accountable to the society over which they are placed, ought alone to quiet this apprehension. But, fortunately, the Constitution has provided a still further safeguard. The members of the Congress are rendered ineligible to any civil offices that may be created, or of which the emoluments may be increased, during the term of their election. No offices therefore can be dealt out to the existing members but such as may become vacant by ordinary casualties: and to suppose that these would be sufficient to purchase the guardians of the people, selected by the people themselves, is to renounce every rule by which events ought to be calculated, and to substitute an indiscriminate and unbounded jealousy, with which all reasoning must be vain. The sincere friends of liberty who give themselves up to the extravagancies of this passion-are not aware of the injury they do their own cause. As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another. PUBLIUS

No. 56, Par. 1, James Madison:

The second charge against the House of Representatives is that it will be too small to possess a due knowledge of the interests of its constituents.

As this objection evidently proceeds from a comparison of the proposed number of representatives with the great extent of the United States, the number of their inhabitants, and the diversity of their interests, without taking into view at the same time the circumstances which will distinguish the Congress from other legislative bodies, the best answer that can be given to it will be a brief explanation of these peculiarities.

It is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents. But this principle can extend no further than to those circumstances and interests to which the authority and care of the representatives relate. An ignorance of a variety of minute and particular objects which do not lie within the compass of legislation is consistent with every attribute necessary to a due performance of the legislative trust. In determining the extent of information required in the exercise of a particular authority, recourse then must be had to the objects within the purview of that authority.

What are of most importance, and which seem most to require local knowledge, are commerce, taxation, and the militia.

A proper regulation of commerce requires much information, as has been elsewhere remarked; but as far as this information relates to the laws and local situation of each individual State, a very few representatives would be very sufficient vehicles of it to the federal councils.

Taxation will consist, in a great measure, of duties which will be involved in the regulation of commerce. So far the preceding remark is applicable to this object. As far as it may consist of internal collections, a more diffusive knowledge of the circumstances of the State may be necessary. But will not this also be possessed in sufficient degree by a very few intelligent men, diffusively elected within the State? Divide the largest State into ten or twelve districts and it will be found that there will be no peculiar local interests in either which will not be within the knowledge of the representative of the district. Besides this source of information, the laws of the State, framed by representatives from every part of it, will be almost of themselves a sufficient guide. In every State there have been made, and must continue to be made, regulations on this subject which will, in many cases, leave little more to be done by the federal legislature than to review the different laws and reduce them in one general act. A skilful individual in his closet, with all the local codes before him, might compile a law on some subjects of taxation for the whole Union, without any aid from oral information, and it may be expected that whenever internal taxes may be necessary, and particularly in cases requiring uniformity throughout the State the more simple objects will be preferred. To be fully sensible of the facility which will be given to this branch of federal legislation by the assistance of the State codes, we need only suppose for a moment that this or any other State were divided into a number of parts, each having and exercising within itself a power of local, legislation. Is it not evident that a degree of local information and preparatory labor would be found in the several volumes of their proceedings, which would very much shorten the labors of the general legislature, and render a much smaller number of members sufficient for it? The federal councils will derive great advantage from another circumstance. The representatives of each State will not only bring with them a considerable knowledge of its laws, and local knowledge of their respective districts, but will probably in all cases have been members, and may even at the very time be members, of the State legislature, where all the local information and interests of the State are assembled, and from whence they may easily be conveyed by a very few hands into the legislature of the United States.

With regard to the regulation of the militia, there are scarcely any circumstances in reference to which local knowledge can be said to be necessary. The general face of the country, whether mountainous or level, most fit for the operations of infantry or cavalry, is almost the only consideration of this nature that can occur. The art of war teaches general principles of organization, movement, and discipline, which apply universally.

The attentive reader will discern that the reasoning here used to prove the sufficiency of a moderate number of representatives does not in any respect contradict what was urged on another occasion with regard to the extensive information which the representatives ought to possess, and the time that might be necessary for acquiring it. This information, so far as it may relate to local objects, is rendered necessary and difficult, not by a difference of laws and local circumstances within a single State, but of those among different States. Taking each State by itself, its laws are the same, and its interests but little diversified. A few men, therefore, will possess all the knowledge requisite for a proper representation of them. Were the interests and affairs of each individual State perfectly simple and uniform, a knowledge of them in one part would involve a knowledge of them in every other, and the whole State might be competently represented by a single member taken from any part of it. On a comparison of the different States together, we find a great dissimilarity in their laws, and in many other circumstances connected with the objects of federal legislation, with all of which the federal representatives ought to have some acquaintance. Whilst a few representatives, therefore, from each State may bring with them a due knowledge of their own State, every representative will have much information to acquire concerning all the other States: The changes of time, as was formerly remarked, on the comparative situation of the different States, will have an assimilating effect. The effect of time on the internal affairs of the States, taken singly, will be just the contrary. At present some of the States are little more than a society of husbandmen. Few of them have made much progress in those branches of industry which give a variety and complexity to the affairs of a nation. These, however, will in all of them be the fruits of a more advanced population; and will require, on the part of each State, a fuller representation. The foresight of the convention has accordingly taken care that the progress of population may be accompanied with a proper increase of the representative branch of the government.

The experience of Great Britain, which presents to mankind so many political lessons, both of the monitory and exemplary kind, and which has been frequently consulted in the course of these inquiries, corroborates the result of the reflections which we have just made. The number of inhabitants in the two kingdoms of England and Scotland cannot be stated at less than eight millions. The representatives of these eight millions in the House of Commons amount to five hundred and fifty-eight. Of this number, one ninth are elected by three hundred and sixty-four persons, and one half, by five thousand seven hundred and twenty-three persons. (Burgh's Political Disquisitions.) It cannot be supposed that the half thus elected, and who do not even reside among the people at large, can add anything either to the security of the people against the government, or to the knowledge of their circumstances and interests in the legislative councils. On the contrary, it is notorious that they are more frequently the representatives and instruments of the executive magistrate than the guardians and advocates of the popular rights. They might therefore, with great propriety, be considered as something more than a mere deduction from the real representatives of the nation. We will, however, consider them in this light alone, and will not extend the deduction to a considerable number of others who do not reside among their constituents, are very faintly connected with them, and have very little particular knowledge of their affairs. With all these concessions, two hundred and seventy-nine persons only will be the depository of the safety, interest, and happiness of eight millions--that is to say, there will be one representative only to maintain the rights and explain the situation of twenty-eight thousand six hundred and seventy constituents, in an assembly exposed to the whole force of executive influence and extending its authority to every object of legislation within a nation whose affairs are in the highest degree diversified and complicated. Yet it is very certain, not only that a valuable portion of freedom has been preserved under all these circumstances, but that the defects in the British code are chargeable, in a very small proportion, on the ignorance of the legislature concerning the circumstances of the people. Allowing to this case the weight which is due to it, and comparing it with that of the House of Representatives as above explained, it seems to give the fullest assurance that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the latter both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it. PUBLIUS

END OF CHAPTER THREE

제목: PJ#096 HEAVE-HO (Phase Two)

인쇄/구독/투표

보기 선택

응답: PJ#096 HEAVE - HO (Phase Two)

응답: PJ#096 HEAVE - HO (Phase Two)

주제글 정보

Users Browsing this Thread

유사한 글

PJ#097, HEAVE-`EM OUT Phase Three, Part 1

PJ#095, HEAVE-UP (Phase One)

이 주제글의 글단추(태그)

글쓰기 규칙