The Federalists who lied and formed a monarchy

ლალელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელე� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� Why was Alexander Hamilton writing a letter to James Duane in 1780, months before the Articles of Confederation were officially in place? The only reason that we could come to when we understand this is the fact that Alexander Hamilton knew that the Articles of Confederation were not only going to accept a monarchical form of government, they were going to be totally opposed to it with what was called, very distinctly, states' rights. And the states' rights people, I've heard people complain about them over and over again, oh those states' rights, look what it led to. The states' rights led to slavery. No it didn't. The states' rights was what the monarchists could not allow because they needed one central authority. They needed a king. Now they didn't mind if you had a parliament, which would be the U.S. Congress, you know, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate. They are exactly similar. They got exactly what they wanted. But to get to the valid point, we must ask ourselves again, why and what was the reasoning behind Alexander Hamilton's letter to James Duane a year, almost a year, several months, to be more accurate, before the Articles were ever ratified? Well, to answer that question, I think the only answer is to actually look at the letter itself. And so, here we go. So this letter was written from Alexander Hamilton to James Duane on the third day of September in 1780. Now again, just for refresher, the Articles of Confederation were not ratified until May of 1781. So we're September to May here. And obviously, I'll read you the first paragraph, and that is, Now it might be of some question, who was James Duane, and why was he asking Alexander Hamilton, instead of others, to give his ideas on the defects of a system that was not even in place yet? I think we must, that is a question that must be answered. And we will. But let's get along with the letter here, because it is very, very, very informative. The fundamental defect is a want of power in Congress. In other words, more power in the hands of the wealthy aristocracy. Now listen carefully here, folks. Here is why the Federalist monarchist wanted to do away with the Articles of Confederation. Again, it originates from three causes. Number one, an excess of the spirit of liberty. Now if that doesn't crack your head, I don't know what is. They don't like the Articles of Confederation because they give the people liberty. And then he goes on to say, In other words, they didn't want to be slaves. They wanted to be able to control the government which governed them. Now what's wrong with that? Consent of the governed, which is in the Declaration of Independence? Well, let's move along. And then Hamilton says, Till they have scarcely left themselves the shadow of power, a want of sufficient means at their disposal to answer the public exigencies, and a vigor to draw forth those means which have occasioned them to depend on the states individually to fulfill their engagements with the army, and the consequence of which has been to ruin their influence and credit with the army, to establish its dependence on each state separately rather than on them, which is the Congress. That is rather than on the whole collectively. So here, folks, very simple is the fact that Alexander Hamilton and his fellow Federalists wanted to eliminate the states because the states were not going to allow them to create their own monarchy and then to run it. Of course, they would have to do it under another name. Again, because as mentioned in their writings back and forth, they knew that the people of the various states were never going to accept anything that resembled a monarchy because they had just fought a long and bloody war to rid themselves of exactly that. But Hamilton and his cronies were determined they were going to reinstitute a monarchy. In the 13 colonies, and so they proceeded in that effort. So let's jump forward now from that 1780 letter and we go through several years. We have a meeting at Mount Vernon in 1785, which was a meeting of these Federalists to try to create and to make plans for the government they wanted. And then we had the Annapolis Convention in 1786, which was very disappointing to these Federalists because they called for this convention and only five of the 13 states actually showed up, which shows you exactly how much the common folks in America at that time wanted a new constitution. So only five states shows up, it's held in Annapolis, Maryland, and Maryland doesn't even send delegates. So there is a gross indifference here, which James Madison and Alexander Hamilton very quickly determined that they have to find a way around this to get the people behind them and their only avenue was to recruit George Washington into the mix. Because they had seen that without Washington the people just didn't seem to care. So they embarked on an effort to get Washington to make sure that he showed up at the convention, which he said no in the beginning and James Madison even in a letter to Washington said, well if you're not going to come, is it okay if we publish that you will be there anyway? Now folks, that right there tells you why they felt they had to have Washington. Because without him they were not going to be able to re-institute their monarchy. So here we go, and let's jump a little ahead past the convention in Annapolis, which led Congress to ask for a new convention but ironically the convention was authorized only to amend the Articles of Confederation. There was nowhere in there given the power to anyone to create an entirely new constitution. But the Federalist Monarchists had planned to do so in advance, which makes this a criminal conspiracy because they conspired to violate the laws of the Articles of Confederation. So the Constitutional Convention of 1787, as much as you were taught that it was inspired by God, was a criminal conspiracy. They knew when they left, they never intended to honor any of those. And a little bit later in this podcast today I'm going to read from you from the Pennsylvania Assembly once the Constitution was sent to the states, and then the states were to form ratification conventions when the Articles of Confederation, Article 13, required that any such move be ratified by every one of the state legislatures. But as we get into this you will find that Madison makes an appeal at the convention that if we send this new constitution to the legislatures it will be rejected. So we have to create a way around the law of the Articles of Confederation, and let's create conventions where we will have more control because we are the wealthy aristocracy. So we will jump into that in just a second. Now I realize how hard it is for most people to accept the fact that everything they've been taught for the majority of their lives about the U.S. Constitution is a blatant lie. And it's hard to accept. I know. I've been there. I understand it completely. But let's take a look at something here. And that is the Federalists, who were actually monarchists, who went into the convention agreed on certain broad objectives, crucial for their new constitution, all of which were designed to remodel the United States and the Articles of Confederation into a country with a completely British political structure. They had the ultimate advantage of any group that knows what it wants in advance of such a convention. First there must be an overriding sovereign government with independent power to tax, regulate and coerce the states and the individuals of those states. And then an independent and oligarchical executive administration and an upper legislative house, the Senate, which must be created and elevated to weaken the democratic and representative lower house, which would be actually elected by the people. There would, however, be vigorous discussion on the nature of representation in the bicameral Congress. Would it be proportional to population? Or would they base it on equality of voting? In other words, who qualifies? And would slaves be included in that number? It was on these issues that voting would be bitterly debated at this secret convention, among the Federalist monarchists, between large and small states, and the North and the South. When the Constitutional Convention opened on May 25, 1787, its first act was a foregone conclusion, a unanimous election of George Washington as its presiding officer. And then they put him up on a raised platform. Tell me this is not monarchical. They wanted the president of the convention sitting higher than the normal participants. So then it was all too symbolic that Robert Morris was the man to make the nomination. Next came the adoption of voting rules for the convention. The Pennsylvanians had the presumption to urge voting by population, but Virginia, fearing hostility from the small states, vetoed that motion, and voting was established as it was presently in the Congress. One vote per state, and voting by a majority of states, a simple majority resolving all the issues. Another rule made all votes taken to be permanent, subject to reopening later in the convention. Now folks, this is critical, because the Committee of Style and Arrangement took the Constitution that was sent to them by the Committee of the Whole, and just rewrote the Constitution to what they wanted. Now how many people would be surprised to know that the Committee of Style and Arrangement had within its ranks Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, and several other Federalist lawyers. Now, particularly important was a decision to hold the entire convention in the strictest secrecy in order to make sure that the public would not know what was going on until the convention presented its conclusions as a fait accompli. Here was a perfect setting for the pursuance of the monarchist design. This secrecy rule, proposed by Pierce Butler of South Carolina, was to be demonized by Thomas Jefferson as abominable. The Virginia delegation arrived early and hammered out a common program based on James Madison's, you know, Virginia deal. On May 29th, Virginia opened proceedings with Governor Edmund Randolph presenting the revolutionary resolutions to the convention. Yes folks, this was a revolution in favor of big government. Now, all of these had been written primarily by James Madison. Now, Randolph, who had been quickly influenced by Madison on the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, made clear that the Virginia plan was directed against democracy within the states. So, Governor Randolph conceded, and these can be found in Robert Yates' notes, that the proposal was, and I quote, not intended for a federal government. He meant a strong, consolidated union in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated, unquote. Specifically, the Virginia plan recommended the following. Number one, voting in the national legislature to be proportionate to tax revenue or population rather than by equality of the states. There goes your consent of the governed, folks. Number two, two branches of the national legislature, the lower house to be selected by the people of each state and not by the state legislatures. Number three, election of the smaller upper house, which would be the Senate, for long terms by the lower house out of persons nominated by the state legislatures. Number four, Congress to be empowered, and I quote, to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent, unquote. Folks, who was going to decide when the states were incompetent? That is critical. The ramifications of this to be presumably decided by Congress, and Congress to have veto power over all state laws, which it considered to be inimical to their government, and the ability to force the states to obey. Thus, the rule of the state legislatures were to be enormously reduced to being a pool only for nominations for the U.S. Senate. And then number five, establishment of a national executive to be chosen by the Congress, its salary to be fixed and chosen by that Congress, and the executive would be limited to a single term. And then number six, a national judiciary of supreme and inferior courts, and with supreme jurisdiction for all interstate cases. We have that, folks. Number seven, the creation of a council of revision, composed of the executive and some of the national judiciary, to examine every act of the legislature and to exert a veto power over it, which could be overridden. And then number eight, the final point was that this government would be submitted by the old Congress, not to the state legislatures as required under the Articles of Confederation, but to special state conventions chosen by the people for this purpose. And that gets to be an interesting point, because they weren't chosen by the people. In the course of clarification of their resolutions, it quickly became clear that Virginia and their plan had wanted not a merely federal union, but a nationalist monarchical government, consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative and executive. In short, Madison's plan meant political revolution, rather than a reform of the Articles of Confederation, under what authority they were all there. Now, Gouverneur Morris further clarified the monarchist's point of view. The old federal government was a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties, while the new national government was to have a complete and compulsive operation. They wanted the power to dominate and control. I don't know how we can call it anything else. It was these revelations that made Charles Coachworth Pinckney of South Carolina and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts become somewhat uncomfortable. This was illegal, revolutionary, and violated the express instructions of Congress and some states to confine themselves to revising the Articles. Now, Pinckney stated that the convention should really be at an end because of this. They were violating the law, while Elbridge Gerry called on the delegates to create a federal, rather than a national or monarchical legislature, executive and judiciary. But the convention as a whole ignored the protest and faithfully resolved, and I quote, a national government ought to be established consisting of a supreme legislature, judiciary and executive. This critical resolution, which was moved by Pierce Butler of South Carolina, passed by a vote of six to one with one tie. The states voting yes for this were Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The states that voted no were Connecticut, and was Connecticut, and the state that was divided was New York between Hamilton for and Yates and Lansing against. The Virginia Plan then went into the Committee of the Whole, and the convention spent the next two weeks debating its provisions. This was in itself a benefit for these monarchists because they were able to get from the beginning the frame of reference for all of the debates at the convention. And one crucial debate concerned Virginia's demand over proportional representation in Congress, either by population or by the contributions of revenue, and the issue of election of congressmen by popular vote. Here had been one of the critical debates in the writing of the Articles of Confederation about ten years prior. There were in fact two main reasons for the Federalist emphasis on these issues. One was the desire of the populous states, the ones with the largest number of people, to dominate the new government by ensuring that there would be no equality among the states in voting. In other words, the states with a large population like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts did not want the other states to be able to veto what they might want, and so the Articles had to be destroyed. And as I said, in particular Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts were anxious to get this domination by the smaller states with nearly half of the American population between those three states. They wanted to totally get rid of the other states' influence. James Madison of Virginia and James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania led the drive for proportional representation. In contrast now, the small states, even the most Nationalist or Federalist among them, were bitter about all of this. George Reed, who was from Delaware, even threatened to lead Delaware out of the convention if the large states insisted on this plan since the state had instructed their delegates not to change any rules of suffrage. In other words, their delegates were not to authorize anything that would take away an equal vote from their state in the proceedings. Now, when the Delaware threat comes out, the convention agreed to postpone the most rabid question of proportional representation in Congress. They postponed it to another time. But there was another reason for this Federalist clause, a reason which has again been foreshadowed in the original debates over the Articles of Confederation. This was supposedly a democratic opportunism by the antis to use popular election of the large house to destroy the power of the state legislatures, which were severely hated by these Federalist monarchists as being overly democratic and inimical to a powerful central government like a monarchy. Thus, democracy should be thwarted with this seemingly democratic solution. This clause of popular election of the House of Representatives of Congress was opposed from two directions, by those critical of a strong centralist government and by anti-democrats, who were often the same people who didn't understand the intricacies and subtleties of these monarchist moves and machinations. Thus, on one hand, Roger Sherman of Connecticut demanded a continued election of the lower house by the state legislature. Otherwise, state governments would be critically weakened by a strong national central government. On the other hand, Sherman, the South Carolinians, and Elbridge Gerry, frankly frightened by the Shaysite Rebellion, warned of the evils of popular election in Congress. Oh, the people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Hmm, imagine that. Well, today we just fix them. It doesn't make any difference. The idea of a direct popular election of Congress was defended by George Mason, and he was, you know, we can call him an anti-federalist, who didn't grasp at that time the complete magnitude of what these federalists were trying to do, out of his respect for his neighbor George Washington and a few others. It took Mason a while, especially if you read his letters, it took him a while to figure out what they were doing. But in answer to Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, Mason simply defended such an elected lower house as the grand depository of the democratic principles of government. James Madison, who absolutely understood what was going on, because he was one of the people behind it, shrewdly provided lip service to the necessity of a popular election of one legislative branch as essential to every plan of free government. But then he revealed the purpose of the plan by assuming that popular elections would be refined, now listen to this, by successive filtrations. Is that not what you saw in 2020, folks? Successive filtrations of the truth? And that such filtrations of the Senate, the upper house, the judiciary, and the executive would effectively place the all-powerful centralized government under popular control. It certainly was a lie. The even more open James Wilson, the wonderful Caledonian, he laid bare the Machiavellian design of the monarchist. Popular election of the house would free the national government from state control, and thus raise the federal pyramid to a considerable altitude. That was his exact quote. By giving this new government as broad a basis as possible, thus national power could really be removed from more popular control, while at the same time popular elections would mislead the people into placing their confidence in the government. And as the Caledonian stated, and I quote, No government could long subsist without the confidence of the people. In a Republican government, this confidence was peculiarly essential, unquote. Now, Wilson added that a large-scale government would naturally give this confidence because of the support of the ignorant masses. And I quote, The people, he supposed, would be rather more attached to the national government than to their state governments, as being more important in itself and more flattering to their pride, unquote. Well, look around you, folks, that's exactly what we've got today. Furthermore, any danger from excessive democracy could be met by making the elective districts really large, and therefore remote from control by the people themselves. People listen how many times during this entire process at this convention where the primary subject was how to take the control away from the people and put it into the hands of the wealthy aristocracy. Now, there was a funny incident when George Reed, exasperated at John Dickinson of Delaware's wish to allow some room for the states in the American system, revealed his eagerness to see the total abolition of the states. And here is what Mr. George Reed had to say, and I quote, We must look beyond their continuance. Talking about the states. A national government must soon, of necessity, swallow all of them up. They will soon be reduced to the mere office of electing the National Senate, and that is all, unquote. Reed attributed any reluctance to interested men in state government. James Wilson, alarmed at Reed's imprudent frankness, hastened to assure everyone that the states would not be abandoned. In fact, they might well remain, provided as they were restrained to local interests only, unquote. Folks, today, just look around you. The only thing you're supposed to be concerned with is what is happening in your immediate area. Forget what the federal government's doing because it's none of your business. But with Reed refusing to take the hint, and he repeated his pronouncements again, It must be doubtful, folks, that Wilson's attempt to soothe proved much comfort for the very few people who were there who supported that position. So, a Federalist monarchist lied. That is their standard fare. Finally, after lengthy debate, the convention voted on June the 6th to elect the lower house of Congress by the people, rather than by the state legislatures. The vote was 8 to 3, with the three states objecting as Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Well, in the course of the debate on this question, James Madison returned to the scene to proclaim a general defense of the concept of a strong, powerful central government. And probably what is one of the most specious and overrated arguments for wide-ranging government ever heard in our history. Which kind of foreshadowed his argument in Federalist No. 10. Madison insisted that one of the main purposes of government was to defend the rights of various types of minorities. To do so, the bigger and farther-reaching government, the better, for then it would be difficult for any one majority to form out of the great multiplicity of minority interest. Now, that sounds a little confusing, but here's how Madison put it himself, and I quote, Where a majority are united by a common sentiment and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a Republican form of government, the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have any common interest. And in the second place, they may not be apt to unite in pursuit of that common interest. Well, folks, it should be evident that, first of all, coalitions to form a majority are not very difficult. And second, centralizing of power into one huge monopoly, in other words, a monarchy, provides far more of an opportunity and more of an incentive for trampling the rights of minorities. And we're not talking racial here, folks. We're talking about political ideas and philosophies. The stakes are larger and restraints weaker, not greater, because power is concentrated and consolidated. On the contrary, it is the fragmentation of power into many small local units that is likely to make the oppression of minorities almost impossible. Furthermore, minorities tend to have more control in smaller political units, since they are more likely to have effective representation within their units. In other words, the smaller the political unit, the harder it is for any one minority to coerce another, and the greater control each minority has over its own governance. In reality, Madison's argument was worded in a most deceptive language. What Madison and his fellow Federalist monarchists were really anxious to secure were the rights of minorities against the majority, the rights of the wealthy aristocracy against the mass of the people, or, more specifically, an oligarchical rule by a specialized minority at the expense of everyone else. And folks, that's exactly what we got. What central government power made easier was just such a minority rule, for central government was both stronger and more remote from the knowledge, vigilance, and control of the people. The larger the scope and strength of any government, the more difficult it is for a knowledgeable majority to form and unite to rise up against its remote oligarchical and monarchical rule. The unrealism of James Madison's theory should be seen from the only true example which were given of supposed majorities trampling over the minority that made a strong central government necessary. And I quote, debtors have defrauded their creditors. The landed interest has borne hard on the mercantile interest. Unquote. So here, in essence, what Madison is saying is that we have to find some way to dominate and to control through taxation the majority of the people. But, in fact, folks, the reality of the 1780s was that the inland farmers were being oppressed by the public debt and the tax structure imposed by the merchant-led public creditors. And that such attempts to oppose this, such as Shays' Rebellion, which was designed to break off the yoke of taxation, and this was an important factor in pushing the nationalists to form this centralized monarchy which they would control. They did not want the people, like in the Shays' Rebellion, to be able to revolt against heavy taxation. Well, my goodness, isn't that the reason we had a revolution to start with? Well, anyway, this strong centrist government was partly devised to re-impose the minority mercantilist yoke upon the majority, which many of the states had suddenly decided was just something they were not going to tolerate. Well, the next critical debate was over the Senate, which Virginia had proposed to have elected by the lower house of Congress, thus assuring large-state nationalist domination of the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. But folks, here the resistance was just too great, and only Massachusetts and South Carolina backed the Virginia plan. James Wilson insisted on crushing the states completely by also electing the Senate according to popular vote, while George Reid was by far the most reactionary in advocating the executive appointment of Senators from members of state legislatures. John Dickinson of Delaware protested that he opposed any attempt to abolish the states altogether. Now, the result on June 7th was unanimous agreement to have Senators selected by the separate state legislatures, and we all know they moved in, came up with the never-properly-ratified 17th Amendment, and totally went back to what the Federalists had wanted from the very beginning. Well, by early June, the convention had decided on election of the lower house of Congress by the people of various states and election of the Senators by the state legislatures, but one critical point about the representation had yet to be settled, how many representatives would be granted to each state. Now, this created quite a bit of an argument, but then it was postponed when the Delaware delegates just said, nah, we're walking out. And that kind of tabled this move. And they had said they would walk out should representation be proportionate, as in the Virginia plan, to population in the apportionment of both houses of Congress. So, there we are to this point. So, it would appear here, by the end of May, the convention had approved, with slight debate, a severely national power granted to Congress, including the absolute power to act whenever that power deemed the states to be incompetent. Now, I don't know how you do that. How could a state be considered incompetent by the Federal Authority? To me, that is a recipe for disaster. But it also gave this centralized government the power to veto any and all state laws that they decided would violate the Constitution or any national treaties. Now, believe it or not, this was added by Benjamin Franklin, who was not even an official delegate to the convention. But we'll get to that. Now, Charles Pinckney, John Rutledge, and Pierce Butler from South Carolina expressed a sincere concern over the sweeping nature of congressional powers. Randolph rather ingeniously denied any intention to destroy the state power, which makes no sense considering what had been said, while little Jimmy Madison held that broad national consolidation would override any contrary wishes for a limited enumeration of powers. Now, for his part, James Wilson, you know, just really went after him. And he said, and I quote, that it would be impossible to enumerate the powers which the federal legislature ought to have. Its power must, in short, be limitless. Oh, my goodness. And when were we taught about that in school? The central government was to have unlimited powers, which they got with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which was added by the Committee of Style and Arrangement. So finally, the convention granted Congress the absolute power to act whenever the states were not competent by a vote of nine to zero, with one state failing to agree. And so Madison did opportunistically prefer an amendment of the clause authoring force against the states, because force, Madison observed, would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment. And I think he was right. Well, there was quite a bit of discussion, and it continued to go back and forth over the nature of the power of the executive. What specific form should this take? Should it, for example, be one national head, or should there be, like, a committee? Predictably, the monarchists, led by James Wilson, Charles Paine, and John Rutledge, wanted a single executive, which would concentrate the most power and be closest to an American monarchy. Folks, they said it at the convention. Roger Sherman urgently insisted in opposition that the executive was only an instrument for carrying out the will of the legislature, and therefore the members of the executive should be left to the discretion of Congress. Edmund Randolph of Virginia warned that a single executive would constitute the fetus of democracy. Well, folks, isn't that what we have today? The single executive? He suggested instead a plural, three-way executive. Randolph insisted that he would be opposed to a single executive for as long as he lived. Well, unfortunately, he didn't stand by that. But the permanent temper of the people, Randolph warned, was adverse to the very semblance of a monarchy. Well, but they got one anyway, didn't they? To this, James Wilson and the other ultra-monarchists, who called themselves Federalists, hastened to assure the convention that there was no resemblance whatsoever to the British monarchy here. Of course they did. Lied through their teeth. James Wilson's use of dramatic rhetoric toward the necessity of concentrated power was advanced even further by South Carolina's Pierce Butler, who declared that a single executive would in some way, and I quote, be responsible to the whole and would be impartial to its interests, unquote. Now, Butler was particularly concerned to have a single impartial executive for conducting all military actions. Well, old James Wilson jumped in, and he seems to have deplored the use of the alleged devotion of the Founding Fathers at Philadelphia to checks and balances in government. Instead, a plural executive was rejected by Wilson because it allowed for disagreement. Well, my goodness. But which would have prevented the effective and unchecked actions of the national government. So on June the 4th, the convention acceded to Wilson's desire for a single executive. Now, the vote was 7 to 3. New York, Maryland, and Delaware objected. Virginia's delegation was split 4 to 3 in favor of Wilson's scheme over its own proposed plan. George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and John Blair were overruled by the strongly Federalist monarchists James Madison, George Wythe, and James McClurg, and it was joined by the rare George Washington tie-breaking vote. Hmm. Remember when they told us about that in school? Nah, me neither. Well, James Wilson, on June the 1st and the 2nd, continued to promote his emphatically ingenious scheme for the reality of tyranny unopposed in a democratic forum. Wilson called for replacing the Virginia plan selection of the executive by Congress. Instead, Wilson's plan was for the executive or the president to be chosen directly by the people voting in state districts to choose electors, who in turn would select the executive. Thus, in the name or the appearance of a popular election, the executive would be removed from its natural dependence in the body making the laws, which was the legislature, and then it would exist independently and remotely in its own power base, subordinate to the public, so to speak, but in reality, removed from any public control. The insulation from public control was ensured by the device we know today as the electoral college, which placed the executive far removed from any popular choice. Wilson also repeated his argument for a popular election of the lower house, since only with this would the people truly be inclined to place any confidence in their nationalist leaders. Roger Sherman opposed the ultra-nationalist schemes. Sherman was for the appointment by the legislature and for making him absolutely dependent on the legislature, as it was the will of that which was to be executed. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Finally, Wilson's proposal was beaten down with a vote of 8 to 2, and only Maryland and Pennsylvania backed him. The convention then agreed that Congress would elect a single executive for a term of 7 years, and again the vote on this was 8 to 2, with Pennsylvania and Maryland voting no. This lengthy 7-year term, however, was a victory for the monarchist. It was proposed by Charles Pinckney, but it was attacked by Gunning Bedford of Delaware, who called for a shorter 3-year term. The 7-year clause was passed by a close vote of 5 to 4 to 1, with New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia voting yes, and North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut voting no, and then divided in their votes was Massachusetts. The nationalist, or federalist, won another handful by overwhelmingly crushing an intelligent proposal by John Dickinson, who was worried about the excessive nationalist monarchist trends at the convention, and he proposed that the executive be removable by Congress with a majority of the state legislatures. Hmm, that's interesting. But on June 4, the question of the preferred veto power for a council of revision ran into the sensible theory that judges should not be part of a vetoing council, because they were also the arbiters of the constitutionality of laws. There was also this very unusual clause, which was pushed by the monarchists James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, to give the executive, or to give the president, an absolute veto power over any acts of Congress. Now, is that not a monarchy? A vast power that they somehow contingent… It's incredible. Here's what they said. Well, if we give him this power, it will not be too much exercised. Yeah, right. And then they claimed that its very existence would preserve harmony and prevent mischief. Oh my goodness. And why weren't we taught this? In other words, they said it would ensure the subservience of Congress to the supreme will of the executive. Monarchy! Sorry, couldn't help myself. Even so strong a Federalist as Pierce Butler just absolutely balked at that. And what he warned was that what you're doing here is we're headed for another Oliver Cromwell. And James Madison felt that the people were not yet ready to give a centralized government such a prerogative. To meet this new threat by these ultra-monarchists, instead of just a little monarchist in drag, George Mason rose and thundered that the executive would be a monarchy even more dangerous than the British because it was elected. Mason then said, and I quote, I hope that nothing like a monarchy would ever be attempted in this country. A hatred to its oppressions had carried the people through the late revolution, unquote. Well, the Wilson-Hamilton gang proposed their proposal for an absolute veto was thus defeated unanimously by the states. The single executive, however, was given veto power that could only be overridden by two-thirds of each house of Congress. And the veto was vested in him alone and not in a council of revision. The requirements for overriding the veto were so stringent that an elective monarchy in the United States was actually imposed. And I know people are going to get upset and say, oh, well, it was inspired by God. No, it wasn't. Who would appoint the judiciary became the next question at the convention. Now, the Virginia plans appointment of the Supreme Court by Congress was fought by Wilson and the ultranationalists who urged that the executive, a single responsible person, be given the power to appoint the entire judiciary. Again, all power would be concentrated in the president king. But this time, John Rutledge balked at the specter of a monarchy, and Sherman and Pinckney urged the original Virginia plan back again. James Madison, however, proposed and carried a compromise for selection of the Supreme Court by the U.S. Senate. A particularly severe struggle occurred over the role of the inferior courts. And this is where it gets to be fun, folks. The moderates, led by Rutledge and Sherman, wanted no inferior courts whatsoever. All original cases should be heard in the state courts, and the federal Supreme Court would then be limited only to an appellate role, which would be sufficient to ensure national uniformity. Now, any structure of federal inferior courts would pose a threat to state power and raise the potential for a national dictator. Really. Madison, for several reasons, led the Federalist fight for a body of inferior courts with full jurisdiction in many cases. Thus, the federal judiciary would be commensurate to the legislative authority. Now, Rutledge's proposal to eliminate the clause establishing federal inferior courts passed on June 5th by a narrow vote of 5-4-2. Yes, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. No, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia. Divided were two states, Massachusetts and New York. But just when it appeared that these monarchists had suffered a significant loss, the Federalists bounced back to capture once more, as in the case of the executive veto power, the very essence of their goals of a monarchy at the expense of a slight loss of the form. Wilson and Madison ensured that Congress, quote, be empowered to establish inferior courts and won by a vote of 8-2-1. Connecticut and South Carolina being opposed and New York divided. Again, the Federalists won the essence of their demands. Now, folks, here's where you have to stop and think about something with these inferior courts, and we'll get into that in more detail as we move along in the progression of this study. But the inferior courts were put there by the monarchists for one reason, to control the states. So anytime the states got, oh, hey, as a central government, you're violating our rights, and we want to do something about it, and so to stop it, to nip it in the bud, so to speak, they had to have those inferior federal courts. Folks, I will take you back a little less than a year to the state of Missouri, and the state of Missouri actually passed a law called the Second Amendment Protection Act in the state of Missouri. And then the Department of Justice in the great monarchy, the Department of Justice gave it to the court, the federal court in Missouri, where the federal judge there, one Brian Wimes, said that the state trying to protect their rights were acting unconstitutionally because the supremacy clause of the Constitution overrides the Bill of Rights. Now, where is the outcry? Where is the scream and yell? And folks, then a little later it went to an appellate court, which backed up the federal court decision. Oh, imagine that! And then it actually was sent to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, imagine that, but then, I think it was Gorsuch, issued a statement stating that in his opinion, Judge Wimes was absolutely correct in his ruling. Well, folks, that looks as if it will do it for today's lesson. I hope that you enjoyed it, and I would ask that if at all possible, you support my Substack. My research is quite exhaustive, and to accompany that with my radio programs, it's full-time job for us. So, if you would choose to support me, I would greatly appreciate it. You can go right in this Substack and become a paid subscriber. But even if you can't do that, or you don't want to do that, then I love free will, because that's your choice. But anyway, folks, it's always my pleasure. I love to get involved in these. I love to put these things together. I love to make these things work, because education and knowing the truths of our own history is the only chance we have. If we don't know what happened, then we defend lies. And I, myself, have been one of those that has defended lies for all too long in my lifetime. Well, thanks everyone. God bless. Hope to see you soon in my next Substack, where we'll take up with this Constitutional Convention. God bless. Have a good one. God bless.