Dissecting the Constitution (Preamble)

The speaker discusses the Constitution, specifically focusing on the preamble and the authority of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. They argue that the delegates acted outside their authority and engaged in a criminal conspiracy by creating a new Constitution instead of amending the Articles of Confederation. The speaker also questions the legitimacy of the phrase "we the people" and the changes made to the preamble. They argue that the changes reflected a shift towards a national government rather than a confederation of states. The speaker criticizes the lack of a Bill of Rights and the limited voting rights of the time. They conclude by discussing the implications of the preamble and the enumerated powers doctrine in judicial decisions. ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ� ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្� But we're going to take each step of the Constitution, each article, each section, each clause, and we're going to start with the preamble, of course, but we're going to dissect each and every one of those using, of course, source documentation in our presentations. And so we shall get started. First of all, it is absolutely imperative that we understand the dynamics of what happened at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. And we know, or we should know, that all of the delegates were sent to Philadelphia by their respective state legislatures to amend the Articles of Confederation. Nowhere in their grant of authority was given the right to produce an entirely new Constitution and complete alteration of the existing law of the land of that day, which was, in fact, the Articles of Confederation. So they were, as Samuel Bryan, writing as Sentinel, what they were, in fact, were criminal conspirators. Now you say, well, okay, how is it criminal? Well, it's criminal because they weren't following the law of the day, which was the Articles of Confederation. How is it a conspiracy? Well, you would have to go back and look at the letters between people such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington, John Jay, and others to actually see where this conspiracy occurs. And the delegates who arrived in Philadelphia, especially the ones from Pennsylvania itself or Philadelphia, they were all seven from Philadelphia, all delegates. So the western part of the state was not represented at all, which kind of throws an irony in the phrase, we the people, does it not? But we're going to get into that as we touch on the preamble to the Constitution. But again, no delegate had the right when they got there to alter the Articles of Confederation to the point that they no longer existed. It was the law of the land. They were to follow those laws, which they chose not to do. And even with the later, after it was done, the Pennsylvania Assembly actually stated unequivocally. So now I will quote directly from the Pennsylvania legislature and their document on the 12th of October in 1787, just a couple of weeks after the convention had ended. And as I said, quote, we confess when the legislature appointed delegates to attend the convention, our ideas extended no farther than a revision or amendment of the present Confederation, nor were our delegates by the Acts of Assembly appointing them authorized to do more as will appear by referring to the said Act, the second section of which describes their powers in the following words. Be it enacted, and it is hereby enacted by the representatives of the free men of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, that Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Jared Ingersoll, Thomas Fitzsimmons, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris, Esquires, are hereby appointed deputies from this state to meet in the convention of the deputies of the respective states of North America, to be held at the City of Philadelphia on the second day of the month of May next. And the said Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Jared Ingersoll, Thomas Fitzsimmons, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris, Esquires, pardon me, or any four of them, are hereby constituted and appointed deputies from this state, with the powers to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized by the other states to assemble in the said convention at the City of Forsaid, and to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union, and in reporting such act or acts for that purpose to the United States and Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly informed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same. You will therefore perceive that they had no authority whatever from the Legislature to annihilate the present Confederation, and form a Constitution entirely new, and in doing so which they have acted as mere individuals, not as the official deputies of this Commonwealth. So, two things to notice here, in that passage, was number one is that the delegates acted as individuals, they did not act for the people of the state of Pennsylvania, and therefore they could not operate for the people of all 13 colonies, or 13 states, whichever one you want to call them. They did not have the authority to do so. Any authority that they acted on was assumed by them, and that might be the reason that they decided to have this whole darn thing in secret, because if you were breaking the law, would you want to do it obviously where everyone could watch, or everyone could hear? No, so they did it in secret. They put guards at the door, they hung blankets over the windows in the summertime, and swore each other to never mention what they had talked about for 50 years. Well, they assumed within 50 years that they would all be gone, and that was a pretty good assumption, but why is there any other reason to operate for the people, as they claim they did, in secret? All right, now the second thing, if you notice, there were listed seven delegates from Pennsylvania, listed by, and I read them for you, listed by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania. Missing was Benjamin Franklin, and Benjamin Franklin was not appointed by any other state to be their official delegate, but Benjamin Franklin showed up at the convention itself. Now, I would ask you here, by what authority? He wasn't appointed by anyone to be there, he just decided to show up, so that kind of taints the proceedings in a way, because Benjamin Franklin became quite involved in the entire process, but then again, if we go back to the allegation that they were all acting as individuals, maybe that's what Benjamin Franklin did. He just acted as an individual and showed up, but if he wasn't delegated to be there, how did he know when the proceedings would start? Well, we're going to jump in here now with the preamble, and that is rather unique, because I am going to read you the preamble, which was unanimously approved by the Committee of the Whole at the Constitutional Convention. So here it is. We the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity. There it is. That was it. That was unanimously approved by the Committee of the Whole. Unfortunately, it got sent to the Committee of Style and Arrangement, where it was completely and totally altered. Now here is the point that we're going to get to. Who gave them the authority to alter what had already been approved unanimously by the Committee of the Whole? This is absolutely a surreptitious move to change or to alter what had already been approved. So this continues again with the criminal conspiracy. Even among themselves, they operated outside of the limits of their own authority. So now I will quote for you what they changed it to, which we're all familiar with, and that is, we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. Okay, now here's something very peculiar. There are two different entities mentioned here, and most people don't catch this. First of all, it was we the people of the United States, okay, and then they ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America. There's deception there as well, because if today we will take a look at 28 U.S.C. 3002 15a, we will see that the United States is in fact a corporation. So these lawyers, these esquires on the Committee of Style and Arrangement, all of them were esquires, and it states again, we the people of the United States, they're talking about themselves. They are not talking about the people of the United States or the 13 states. They are designating themselves to form a more perfect union. They are assuming powers that were not granted to them by anyone. And of course, this was pointed out in several of the state ratification conventions, including North Carolina. And North Carolina produced a couple of comments, which I will get to here in just a minute, because I think they are very, very critical. But the Committee of Style's changes to the preamble reframed the Constitution, and it converted it from a document establishing a confederation without an overarching purpose, to one which created a nation animated by very powerful goals. Well, this new statement of the nation and its purposes, which reflected Gouverneur Morris' personal views about the national government, had significant legal consequence during the early times under this government. Now, today's legal scholars and courts generally conclude that the preamble is not a grant of power. As a matter of fact, it is listed as, you know, a description, in other words, of what is to be accomplished within that document itself. And it says that the courts, again, will say that it has little or no legal value or judicial usefulness, or it is at most a painted-up powers otherwise granted in the Constitution. However, the founding-era Federalists repeatedly relied on this preamble as a grant of power over the objections of their anti-Federalist opponents. Courts' failure to recognize the Federalist approach to interpreting the preamble, an approach that was guided by Gouverneur Morris' changes to the preamble's text, has consequences of a great significance. Now, what is really strange here is when we look at it, and we notice going into Madison's notes, and going into Robert Yates' notes, and going into some other notes that were actually made at the Convention, there is absolutely no discussion about the Committee of Styles' revised preamble. Now, we have to remember this was introduced at the end of the Constitutional Convention. They had been there for months in the heat, and of course there was no air conditioning back then. But here they were. They were there. They had been there for quite a while. In the very last days, Elbridge Gerry made a motion to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and it was seconded by George Mason. But then it was voted down unanimously, because the Committee of the Whole said, look, we've been here for four months. To do that's going to take a lot more time, so we're not going to do that. We're just not going to do it. And then, of course, George Mason responds, and he says, well, gentlemen, we have with us seven state constitutions with their Bill of Rights attached. It would take us less than two or three hours to put together a Bill of Rights. The Committee of the Whole still said no. They wouldn't even spend two or three hours for a Bill of Rights for the people. So a Bill of Rights was voted down ten to nothing, unanimous. So here we have, and you might say, well, there were 13 colonies. Well, number one, New York had lost their quorum, so they had no vote. Rhode Island didn't show up, and I believe it was New Hampshire tied, so their vote didn't count. But anyway, a Bill of Rights was voted down ten to nothing. Now what does that tell you about a group of people who got together to produce a new form of government, surreptitiously and criminally, and decided, no, we will not list any rights that the people might have, even though we are prefacing our Constitution as if the people were involved in its construction? Now the people who were not there naturally didn't know anything about the enumeration of the individual states in the Committee of the Whole or the Committee of Details preamble, which I read to you earlier. But they were aware of the opening provision of the Articles of Confederation, which declared the document to be, and I quote, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The Constitution's formulation was dramatically different. What right had they to say, we the people, Patrick Henry would angrily demand at the Virginia Ratification Convention. He also said, and I quote, my political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who authorized them to speak the language of we the people instead of we the states? Well, Patrick Henry had a very valid argument there, because by changing the preamble, they altered the government. A preamble, again, is a declaration of intent. So they intended to change from the Articles of Confederation. Well, many scholars have repeatedly argued that, as author historian Clinton Rossiter put it, we ought not attach too much significance to the change. Hmm, why not? Well, let's not forget, this is the same man who said in his book that Abraham Lincoln had to destroy the Constitution and able to preserve it. So we have some kind of idea of Mr. Rossiter's approach here. But on August the 31st, shortly before the Committee of Style began its work, the Convention decided that the new government would come into being if nine states ratified the Constitution, which is a complete and total violation of Article 13, which required all states to agree. But again, historian Rossiter wrote, and I quote, since no one could tell for certain which states would ratify and which would stall or even refuse flatly to join, the sensible course was to leave out any mention of all of New Hampshire and her 12 sisters, unquote. What a ridiculous statement for a man who claims to be a historian. But as a matter of drafting, however, one can easily frame options other than we, the people of the United States, that would have accounted for the possibility that one or more states might not ratify the document. But it still was outside of the law of the land of that day. For example, and if I may, the essential formulation of the Committee of Details preamble could have been preserved by beginning the Constitution with the words, we, the people of the states of the United States. The selection of we, the people of the United States, rather than such a plausible alternative, suggests that Gouverneur Morris's we, the people of the United States was intentional and was meant to reflect a substantive change in vision. Morris's statements at the convention reflect his belief that the Constitution should create a government for a united nation rather than for a confederation of states, which is what most people thought they got. Well, as Gouverneur Morris said at the convention, rather than being a representative of Pennsylvania, he saw himself as a representative of America. And I will jump here to a speech he gave in 1802 when he was a member of the Senate. And this is what he said, and I think it gives us a great insight looking backwards from that date. And he said, never in the flow of time was there a moment so perpetuous as that in which the convention assembled. The states had been convinced by melancholy experience how inadequate they were to the management of our national concerns. The passions of the people were lulled to sleep, state pride slumbered, the Constitution was promulgated, and then it awoke and opposition was formed. But that opposition was in vain. The people of America bound the states down by this compact, unquote. Well, that's pretty well ridiculous, because less than 6% of the people of the 13 states in 1788 had the authority to vote. Because you had to be a property owner, you couldn't be in debt, each state had their own limitations. But less than 6% of the 9 million people could actually vote in an election. So again, we the people is a ridiculous statement to begin with. But as Morris's last sentence suggested, the opening words of the preamble reflected his conception of who the sovereign creators of the Constitution were. The Constitution was the creation not of the people of the various states acting in cooperation, but the people of America as one single unit. Morris's preamble not only changed who the authors of the Constitution were, but also announced their goals. And you know, we got those to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Well, this was a very unusual listing. The Committee of Details preamble, by contrast, had not offered any statement of goals or declaration of intent. The final three goals of Morris's preamble, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty, were in James Madison's Virginia Plan, and were similar to those in the Articles of Confederation Article 2, although the focus in the Articles was on the defense, security of liberty, and general welfare of the states. So much for states' rights. But the second three goals, to form a more perfect Union, to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, are not included in any of the previous documents of the country. The New Jersey Plan also spoke of Union, but the focus is dramatically different. The New Jersey Plan sought to maintain the current arrangement, the preservation of the Union. Gouverneur Morris's goal was very literally a reformulation to form a more perfect Union. Perfect to whom? That's a good question. Well, despite Morris's additions to the preamble, pardon me, courts and scholars today generally do not treat the preamble as a source of any powers, I mentioned that a little earlier, for the government. But this leaves the specifically enumerated grants of power to Congress for or related powers that are implicit in those grants as the only arguable basis for assertions of national authority. Well, let's look down the road here, a lot more current to Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court in the National Federation of Independent Business versus Sebelius, stated, and I quote, the federal government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all of the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists or enumerates the federal government's powers, unquote. Yeah, right. Well, similarly, in Bond v. United States, the court relied on the John Marshall Court decisions in McCulloch v. Maryland and Cohens v. Virginia for the proposition that the federal government lacked a police power and narrowly construed the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act under Cohen v. Virginia to avoid reaching local criminal conduct. The enumerated powers doctrine has also led to the invalidation of congressional legislation in important cases such as United States v. Morrison, United States v. Lopez, and New York v. United States. The conception of the preamble as simple a declaration of intent, pardon me, also has implications for judicial power. Now, there are quite a few of those decisions that we could actually go into, but the central authority for the proposition that the preamble does not confer powers could be found in Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his commentaries on the Constitution, and I quote, the preamble never can be resorted to to enlarge the powers confided to the general government or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount by implication to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power when otherwise withdrawn from the Constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution and not substantively to create them. Unquote. So here we have it. They're saying that it gave no new powers and could not be so construed. But let's go back earlier, right after the government established under the Constitution began. And let's take a look at that. Well, at the various ratification conventions, there was very little discussion whatsoever of the preamble's objects. But looking back at one of the anti-federalists, Melanchthon Smith, he recognized the importance, and he wrote in an essay and attacked the preamble as conferring plenary power on the national government. And I quote, if the end of the government is to be learned from the preamble's words, which are clearly designated to declare it, it is obvious it has in view every object which could ever be embraced by government. Unquote. Well, as previously stated, and of course, we're saying, okay, Declaration of Intent, modern courts say it has no authority, no enforceable authority, what have you. But the preamble, as reconstructed by the Committee of Style and Arrangement, was to play a central role in the major constitutional debates of the early period under this government, and contrary to the stated position of just a story. And so, during debates over presidential authority, slavery, establishing a national bank, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and federal court jurisdiction over all of the states, the preamble was used for ends of fundamental importance to the Federalists, especially Gouverneur Morris. The preamble was first invoked as a grant of power during the first significant debate in Congress about the Constitution's meaning, the 1789 debate about whether the President alone had the power to remove principal officers. Well, Congressman John Lawrence invoked the preamble as a basis for presidential power. Would a regulation that reflected the view that Congress had removal authority be effectual to carry into effect the great objects of the Constitution, Lawrence asked. Invoking the preamble's general welfare clause, Lawrence said that measures inconsistent with the carrying of the Constitution into effect must be rejected as dangerous and incompatible with the general welfare. So, in Congressman Lawrence's view, the preamble granted authority to the President to remove executive officers. Well, in the following year, Benjamin Franklin, who was Gouverneur Morris' fellow Pennsylvania delegate, not really because he wasn't selected, at least that's how he is listed in so many places as a fellow Pennsylvania delegate, but we know from the General Assembly, as I read before, he wasn't on their list. But anyway, Franklin appealed to the preamble as granting Congress the power to fight slavery in a letter to Congress on behalf of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society of which he was President. Invoking the language of the preamble, Benjamin Franklin stated, and I quote, "...observed with real satisfaction that many important and salutary powers were vested in Congress for promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States." Franklin urged Congress to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone, in this land of freedom, are degraded into perpetual bondage, and to step to the very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow men, unquote. So obviously for Benjamin Franklin, the preamble was a grant of power that Congress could draw on to combat slavery. Now that's really ironic because when the Constitutional Convention was actually in session, Franklin had with him a letter from the Quakers, which they were asking the new Constitution to not have slavery, to not condone it, to not have it, to just absolutely abolish it, and Franklin forgot to read that somehow, and slavery went into the Constitution. So it seems like he might have been what we refer to as a double-minded man, huh? Well, the preamble also played a central role in the first great debate in Congress involving the scope of Congressional authority, the debate about the constitutionality of the legislation creating the Bank of the United States. Oh, that's a good one. A review of the legislative record shows that most congressmen who spoke in favor of the bill's constitutionality invoked the preamble. Now Elbridge Gerry argued that the preamble was a source of power that Congress could draw on to create a Bank of the United States, and I'll quote old Elbridge Gerry now, the causes which produced the Constitution were an imperfect union, want of public and private justice, internal commotions, a defenseless community, neglect of the public welfare, and danger to our liberties. These are known to be the causes not only by the preamble of the Constitution, but also from our own knowledge of the history of the times that preceded the establishment of it. If these weighty causes produce the Constitution, and it not only gives power for removing them, but also authorizes Congress to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying these powers into effect, shall we listen to the assertions that these words have no meaning, and that this Constitution has no more energy than the old one? Unquote. So when arguing for the Bank's constitutionality, Elbridge Gerry linked the preamble and Congress's power under the necessary and proper clause to carry the power specified into effect. Well, Fisher Ames also argued that the preamble vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern or of a general nature, and that a national bank undoubtedly comes under this idea. So too, John Lawrence, who I mentioned before, member of Congress, in keeping with his appeal to the preamble during the removal power debate, declared, and I quote, that the great objects of this government are contained in the context of the Constitution, and inferred that every power necessary to secure these must necessarily flow. Finally, Elias Boudinot also relied on the preamble as providing authority for establishing the Bank. So I'm not really going to go too much into what he had to say here, but, you know, I could, but he mentions domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare. So in essence, what these people were saying from the very beginning is the preamble gives the government just carte blanche power to approach any subject that they want to, regardless of whether they actually had the authority or not, but then they granted themselves the authority to do so with the aforementioned Necessary and Proper Clause. Now, ironically, at the Ratification Convention in Virginia, Patrick Henry would say the Necessary and Proper Clause will be the window through which all manners of evil shall pass. Well, there's one thing we know for sure right now, isn't it? Is that the National Bank, or the U.S. Bank, which later became the Federal Reserve, is definitely an evil that has, in essence, destroyed the economy of our country. But getting back to that argument in Congress, the opponents of the U.S. Bank denounced this reliance on the preamble. Now, even James Madison here has switched sides, and here's what he said, and I quote, the preamble to the Constitution has produced a new mine of power, but this is the first instance I have heard of in which the preamble has been adduced for such a purpose. In Madison's opinion, the preamble would only state the objects of the Confederation, which wasn't a confederation, it was a monarchy. But other opponents of the Bank similarly attach the view that the preamble was a grant of power. Now, let me quote from William Branch Giles, who opposed the Bank, and opposed using the preamble, and here's what he had to say, to establish the affirmative of this proposition, arguments have been drawn from the several parts of the Constitution. The context has been resorted to. We, the people of the United States, in order to form more perfectly and establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It has been remarked that here the ends for which this government was established are clearly pointed out. The means to produce the ends are left to the choice of the legislature, and that the incorporation of a bank is one necessary mean to produce these general ends. It may be observed, in reply, that the context contemplates every general object of government whatsoever. Unquote. A constitution of unlimited powers. Well, then let's look to another congressman, Michael Jennifer Stone, and he made the same point, and I will quote his. He said, I would ask if there is any power under heaven which could not be exercised within the extensive limits of this preamble. Now, Edmund Randolph, who was the attorney general, argued that the preamble was hortatory. Hortatory. I'm sorry. And he said, the preamble to the Constitution has also been relied on as a source of power. To this it will be here remarked, once and for all, that the preamble, if it is operative, is a full constitution in and of itself, and the body of the Constitution is useless, but that it is declarative only of the views of the Convention which they supposed would be left fulfilled by the powers delineated, and that such is the legitimate nature of preambles. Unquote. Wow. Imagine that. So, to kind of put it all together here, the debate about the Bank of the United States prominently featured a huge discussion about whether the preamble was, in fact, a grant of power. Now, the Federalists who spoke in the House relied on the preamble, and the opposition, the anti-statists or the anti-Federalists, argued that the preamble was not a grant of power. But the Federalists prevailed because they outnumbered the anti-Federalists in the first Congress by overwhelming odds, 20 to 2 in the Senate. So, this established, whether we want to say today it's only a declaration of intent and it has no power, the precedent has been established for reading the preamble as a grant of power. And we all know about precedents in the judicial system. But then again, the preamble entered the arguments in 1798 about the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Now, the Federalists relied on the preamble, and Republicans, not Republicans, they were Democratic-Republicans at that time, you know, Jefferson's group, criticized that reliance. Responding to Albert Gallatin's argument that Congress lacked authority to pass the Sedition Act, Samuel Seawall referred to the general nature of the Constitution itself, which was drawn from the preamble. Seawall then quoted the preamble and observed, and I quote, the Constitution therefore in the outset establishes the sovereignty of the United States, and that sovereignty must reside in the government of the United States. Didn't mention anything about the people, huh? But Robert Williams, an opponent of the Sedition Act, forcefully rejected Seawall's view of the preamble as a grant to Congress of broad powers. And he stated, if the principle which the gentlemen from Massachusetts have drawn for the preamble of the Constitution be correct, it appears to me unnecessary to have any other provision in the Constitution other than the preamble. As it may be inferred from that, that Congress has all the power whatever to do whatever it so desires. Well, then the debate about the preamble showed up again when Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans moved to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801, which established Federal Circuit Courts. Well, Gouverneur Morris, who is the perpetrator of the change in the preamble, was then a senator from New York, and he argued that the proposed legislation was unconstitutional. Morris relied on the preamble in the Judicial Powers Clause, which he also had rewritten, and we'll get to that later, while serving on the Committee of Style, to make the case that Congress had a constitutional obligation to establish lower Federal Courts. To form, therefore, a more perfect union and to ensure domestic tranquility, Morris declared, the Constitution has said there shall be courts of the Union to try causes by the wrongful decision of which the Union might be endangered or domestic tranquility be disturbed. What he's saying here is we can't allow the states to try to overrule the Federal Government. But Morris contended that Federal Courts strengthened the Union and promoted tranquility, and that eliminating duly established courts would be unconstitutional. He closed his argument by invoking implicitly the goal listed called domestic tranquility, and he stated, the Convention contemplated the very act you now attempt. They knew also the jealousy and the power of the states, and they established for your and for their protection this most important department. I beg gentlemen to hear and remember what I say. It is this department alone, and it is the independence of this department, which can save you from civil war." Unfortunately, it didn't happen. It did not save them from civil war. But here, very succinctly, Gouverneur Morris stated what I have been stating for years, and that is the Federal Courts were established to protect the government from the people of the states and the states. It was not the judicial, Federal Judiciary was not established to protect the rights of the people. Just exactly the opposite. But Morris understood that the preamble which he had written mandated Congress's establishment of lower Federal Courts. Well, jumping to one more use in the early history of the country, the other notable use of the preamble in the early Republic was in Chisholm v. Georgia. Oh boy, now that's a good one. Both Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Jay relied on the preamble to justify the court's exercise of jurisdiction over a state, which happened to be Georgia in this case. Chief Justice John Jay grounded that jurisdiction in the preamble's assertion that the people of all the United States created the Federal Government to establish justice. And James Wilson construed the preamble at length by saying, fair and conclusive deduction then evinces that the people of the United States did not vest this court with jurisdiction over the state of Georgia. The same truth may be deduced from the declared objects and the general texture of the Constitution of the United States. One of its declared objects is to form a union more perfect than before that time had been formed. Another declared object is to establish justice. This points in a particular manner to the judicial authority. A third declared object is to ensure domestic tranquility. This tranquility is most likely to be disturbed by controversies between the states. And oh gosh, we can't have that. These consequences will be most peaceably and effectually decided by the establishment and by the exercise of a superintending judicial authority. Oh my goodness, their words are something else. But for James Wilson, federal court jurisdiction over the states was logically necessary. Because of the preamble. Thus the early history of this country shows that for the Federalists, the preamble was not simply a powerful statement of nationhood. They read it to create presidential power to remove executive branch officials and congressional power to charter a bank and congressional power to pass the Alien and Sedition Act. They used it to create the lower federal courts. You know, that one federal judge that can overrule all the people in any state. We the people, my butt. And, of course, that they had jurisdiction in Chisholm. The Federalists believed the preamble vested substantial legal power in each branch of the national government. Well, I mentioned before that we were going to look at some other sources here, some other original source documents. And so I would like to jump now about the preamble to the North Carolina Ratification Convention and the words of Mr. Joseph Taylor. Now you'll want to pay close attention here because we go back to that word assumed, assumed powers. So here's what Mr. Joseph Taylor had to say. Mr. Chairman, the very wording of this Constitution seems to carry with it an assumed power. We the people is surely an assumed power. Have they said we the delegates of the people? No. It seems to me that when they met in convention, they assumed more power than was given to them. No kidding. Did the people give them the power of using their name? Certainly not. This power was in the people. They did not give it up to the members of the convention. If therefore they had not this power, then naturally they assumed it. It is the interest of every man who is a friend to liberty to oppose the assumption of power as soon as possible. I see no reason why they assume this power. Matters may be carried still farther. This is a consolidation of all of the states. Had the preamble said, we the states, as was, you know, we know was originally passed by the Committee of the Whole, there would have been a federal intention in it. But sir, it is clear that a consolidation is intended. Will any gentleman say that a consolidated government will answer this country? No. It is too large. Now remember, he's talking about 13 states, folks. The man who has a large estate cannot manage it with any convenience. I conceive that, in the present case, a consolidated government can by no means suit the genius of the people. The gentleman from Halifax, Mr. Davey, mentioned reasons for such a government. They have their weight, no doubt. But at a more convenient time, we can show their absolute futility. We see plainly that men who came from New England are different from us. They are ignorant of our situation. They do not know the state of our country, meaning his state. They cannot with safety legislate for us. I am astonished that the servants of the legislature of North Carolina would go to Philadelphia and instead of speaking of the state of North Carolina, should speak of the people in aggregate. I wish to stop power as soon as possible, for they may carry their assumption of power to even more dangerous lengths. Look around you today, people. I wish to know where they found the power of saying, we the people, and of consolidating these states into one entity. Well, now I think it's important to read, if I may, from Luther Martin and his speech to the Maryland legislature in which he said, it was urged that the government we were forming was not in reality a federal but a national government, not founded on the principles of the preservation, but on the principles of abolition or consolidation of all state governments, that we appeared totally to have forgotten the business for which we were sent, and the situation of the country for which we were preparing our system, that we had not been sent to form a government over the inhabitants of America, considered as individuals, that as individuals they were all subject to their respective state governments and their respective state constitutions, which governments would still remain, though the federal government should be dissolved, that the system of government we were entrusted to prepare was a government over these three thirteen states, but that in our proceedings we adopted principles which would be right and proper only on the supposition that there were no state governments at all, but that all of the inhabitants of this extensive continent were in their individual capacity without government and in a state of nature, that accordingly the system proposes the legislature to consist of two branches, the one to be drawn from the people at large, ratified immediately in their individual capacity, the other to be chosen in a more select manner as a check upon the first. It is in its very introduction declared to be a compact between the people of the United States as individuals, and it is to be ratified by the people at large in their capacity as individuals, all of which it was said would require, which would be, I'm sorry, quite right and proper. If there were no state governments, if all of the people of this continent were in a state of nature and we were forming one national government for them as individuals, and is nearly the same as was done in most of the states when they formed their governments over the people who composed them. Whereas it was urged that the principles on which a federal government over states ought to be constructed and ratified are the reverse, that instead of the legislature consisting of two branches, one branch was sufficient, whether examined by the dictates of reason or the experience of ages, that the representation instead of being drawn from the people at large as individuals ought to be drawn from the states as states in their sovereign capacity, that in a federal government the parties to the compact are not the people as individuals, but the states as states, and that it is by the states as states in their sovereign capacity that the system of government ought to be ratified and not by the people as individuals. It was further said that in a federal government over states equally free, sovereign, and independent, every state ought to have an equal share in making the federal laws or regulations, in deciding upon them, and in carrying them into execution, neither of which was the case in this new constitution, but actually the reverse, the states not having an equal voice in the legislature nor in the appointment of the executive, the judges, and the other officers of government. It was insisted that if the whole system there was but one federal feature, the appointment of the senators by the states in their sovereign capacity, that it is by their legislatures and the equality of suffrage in that branch, but it was said that this feature was only federal in appearance. Well, you know, we did better than federal in appearance, because a government that will assume powers not delegated, assumed the power to ratify in of itself, outside of the guidelines and parameters of article 5, to do away with the 17th amendment, to do away with the last federal vestige, the last power of the states in the constitution was destroyed, and it was not ratified by the states. There have been exhaustive studies that prove this. The 17th amendment, the 14th amendment, the 16th amendment were never ratified, but these were powers assumed by the federal government. So therein we see the mess that all of this has brought us to, but there are a couple more that I want to get to. I want to keep these things to about an hour each, and I've got not too much time remaining here, but let me jump to another couple of examples, if I may. Now here, if I can, in an excerpt from Brutus number 12, let's look at, I don't want to read the whole thing, but let's look at a little bit of what he had to say here, and I quote, if it be further considered that this constitution, if it is ratified, will not be a compact entered into by the states in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people of the United States in aggregate as one great body politic, no doubt can remain, but that the great end of the constitution, that is the great end of the constitution, if it is to be collected from the preamble, to which its end is declared, is to constitute a government which is to extend to every case for which any government is instituted, whether external or internal. Pardon me, the courts therefore will establish this as a principle in expounding the constitution, and will give every part of it such an explanation as will give latitude to every department under it to take cognizance of every matter, not only that affects the general and national concerns of the union, but also of such as relate to the administration of private justice, and to regulating the internal and local affairs of the different parts. Such a rule of exposition is not only consistent with the general spirit of the preamble, but it will stand confirmed by considering more minutely the different clauses of it. Unquote. And I obviously would be remiss to not include the address of Patrick Henry at the Virginia Ratification Convention as referenced the preamble, which was given on the 4th of June in 1788, and I quote the great Patrick Henry. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration of those gentlemen, but, sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, we the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who authorized them to speak the language of we the people instead of we the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all of the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them, a confidence which was well placed, and I am sure, sir, I would give up anything to them. I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor, I would have a reason for his conduct. That liberty which he has given us by his valor tells me to ask this question, and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me. I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger which should lead us to take these steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America, but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened. Everything has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running, we know not whither. Differences of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The Federal Convention ought to have amended the old system. For this purpose they were solely delegated. The object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must therefore forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government." Well, folks, I don't know what else one would need to see that this is, in fact, or the Convention was, in fact, a criminal conspiracy. I think the evidence is overwhelming. These people operated outside of their delegated powers. They did it in secret, and they swore each other to secrecy for 50 years. Sounds like a group of criminals to me. And, of course, they were violating almost every provision, especially Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation. And until that Constitution was ratified in June of 1788 by the Ninth State, as required by Article 7, until that Constitution was ratified, the law of the land was the Articles of Confederation, which were just absolutely ignored, violated, and destroyed by these people we call Founders or Framers. Well, folks, Well, folks, there you have it. We, our first mission here, our first podcast on dissecting the Constitution. Or perhaps we would be more in line today to say that this might be a post-mortem, because the Constitution that the people believe that they have does not exist. If it does exist, it does not exist on paper. It exists only in the minds of those who refuse to accept and confront the truth. So, I thank you for taking of your precious time to listen, and hang on, because the next one will be Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1. God bless.