Home

The Articles of Confederation Reconsidered – Part II

3 Comments

In The Articles of Confederation Reconsidered, I posited that our original constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was wholly adequate and superior to the Federalist Constitution that replaced it and that, had we kept the Articles of Confederation, we could have avoided the tyrannical government we have today entirely.

A reader of one of my articles on the Second Amendment had suggested that I read a rather obscure book titled, Hologram of Liberty, by Kenneth W. Royce (AKA Boston T. Party) and he used the term (coined by Royce), parchment worship while mentioning this book to me. Well, I had already been vaguely aware that there was some sort of intrigue going on back in 1787 when the Constitution was written to supplant the allegedly inadequate Articles of Confederation, and I had heard it had something to do with some sort of scurrilous moves by the Federalists, lead by Alexander Hamilton, who were either infiltrated by Freemasons or were Freemasons, themselves (actually, as it turns out, so were some of the Anti-Federalists). But, that was all I could recall about it, having heard about this, initially, some thirty years ago.

Well, my thanks go out to that reader for reawakening me to this and I have now looked into the book he suggested, though I haven’t yet got a copy of it for myself. I did, however, visit the Javelin Press website, where there is a pretty fair amount of information about the book, including the following, which I have excerpted:

Civic Belief #1: The Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.

Civic Belief #2: The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.

If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?

“The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it”. Lysander Spooner, No Treason (1870)

Think about that. By either the Constitution’s purposeful design or by its unintentional weakness, we suffer under a federal colossus which takes a third of our lives and regulates everything from alfalfa to xylophones. This is Freedom? So, why aren’t Americans free? Perhaps we weren’t really meant to be!”

“…the 1787 Convention, its Constitution and Federal Government was the most brilliant and subtle coup d’etat in political history. While the majority of Americans then were Jeffersonian in nature, a few Hamiltonian Federalists eradicated our Swiss-style Confederation and replaced it with a latent leviathan. The Federal Government was given several escape keys to the putative handcuffing by the Constitution. Using the “necessary and proper” and “general welfare” clauses in conjunction with congressional powers under treaty, interstate commerce, and emergency, the “Founding Lawyers” of 1787 purposely designed a constitutional infrastructure guaranteed to facilitate a future federal colossus. While such a massive government was impossible to erect in the freedom-conscious 1780’s, the “virus” of tyranny was cunningly hidden within the Constitution to foment the eventual federal behemoth we are burdened with today. The feds take in a third of economic activity and regulate everything from the price of corn to the size of chimneys and it’s all constitutional!” Oh, it’s only ‘constitutional’ because autocratic Supreme Court Justices say it is!,” some would reply.”

“Yes, but the Framers allowed the Supreme Court, without any check or balance, to approve of federal encroachment on the States and on the people. There is no constitutional avenue for overturning a despotic Supreme Court ruling – and it was designed that way. The feds are allowed to “monitor” themselves, like students grading their own tests. Had the Framers wanted to really check the Supreme Court, they’d have at least created an appellate court (activated by petition) staffed by justices from the States. Had the Framers wanted to really hamstring Congress and the President, they would have given the people a “no-confidence” device to remove traitorous officials in midterm. Had they wanted to, the Framers could have (as did the Swiss) easily confined the Federal Government – but they didn’t want to. In their opinion, a strong central government – independent of real popular approval – was best for America. The Framers left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that’s why we have such an unchallengeable government today.

Most conservatives and libertarians believe that the Constitution and its Framers were Jeffersonian and laissez-faire. They were not, and they never claimed to be. This Jeffersonian gloss is echoic of two things: 1) What the Constitution was sold as to the people through The Federalist, and 2) How the Constitution, according to Jefferson, should have been interpreted under strict constructionism. Add the Red, White, and Blue, July 4th, the Founding Fathers and George Washington and you’ve got a civic religion with its unique parchment worship. There are but three ways to view anything, including the Constitution:

  • The way you see it.
  • The way you would like it to be.
  • The way it really is.

Friends of freedom have gazed dreamily at the Constitution for two centuries, fusing #1 with #2 to create a false #3. We need to snap out of our parchment worship and coldly study the predicament of Liberty–before it’s too late. Liberty-loving folks need to quickly understand that freedom is not well-served by the current Constitution. Neither is tyranny. It is Royce’s firm opinion that the Constitution will be radically amended, if not abolished altogether, by “us” or “them” within 10 years. Royce proves that the States and the people were politically “checkmated” at ratification, and discusses his three peaceful solutions prior the imminent insurrection now brewing. The goal of Hologram of Liberty is to spark an active synthesis of Libertarians, Patriots, and Conservatives to prevent a 21st century Dark Age in America.”

I, for one, will be reading this book and I urge that everyone do so. It is high time that we Americans learned the truth about our Constitution and why it hasn’t prevented a fascistic regime from emerging in America.

Having said that, it becomes even more apparent that I was onto something in suggesting the original Articles of Confederation should have been retained and that we’d all be a lot better off if it had been, in the first place. The thing is, I had no idea how right I was in saying so until I began looking into it further!

It is my firm belief, having looked into this, that, not only could the present state of affairs have been avoided had the Articles of Confederation never been scrapped, but that we need, desperately, to scrap our current fascistic regime and its constitutional underpinnings and start all over again where we left off – with the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation Reconsidered

14 Comments

In contemplating the recent move toward the states declaring their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, I’ve been doing some reading of the Articles of Confederation and, in particular, how they compare with the Federalist Constitution we wound up with and, with the benefit of some hindsight about the two and, in light of where we have wound up today, I have to say there are some things about the Articles of Confederation that are not only preferable to our Constitution, but which may very well have avoided the situation we now find ourselves in.

One of the main criticisms of the Articles of Confederation has always been that the United States and each of the several states was empowered to coin their own money, thus leading to a situation in which each had its own currency. The objection to this was that it was allegedly an unwieldy system in which disputes often arose between states over the relative exchange rate between the competing currencies.

However, I find this to be the main strength of the Articles, in that, it would have made the silent coup by the international banking cartel impossible. It was the Constitution’s provision for a single currency that made us vulnerable to the criminal overthrow of our nation in 1913 – which was the ultimately successful final attempt at such a coup, after several previous attempts by the moneychangers to establish a central bank. A central bank would be impossible to establish under the Articles of Confederation, as there was no centralized economy under the Articles. This is a significant strength and the main reason the Articles were actually superior to the vision of the Federalists. In fact, there is evidence to support the contention that the Federalists were agents of the British Rothschilds and that they were deliberately steering the United States toward a centralized government for exactly the purpose of paving the way for a central bank.

Aside from this key difference, there are some other features of the Articles that would have helped to prevent the current police state from ever forming. Among these was the fact that, under the Articles, there was no President. There was only a unicameral Congress. Admittedly, the bicameral Congress we’ve had since 1788 provides more checks and balances than a unicameral Congress did, however, without a chief executive, this is a minor point, as there was no opportunity for a dictatorial leader to emerge under the Articles of Confederation.

Another feature of the Articles of Confederation was that there was no Supreme Court. Disputes between the several states were adjudicated by Congress. If we had retained that system, it might very well have prevented the corruption we’ve seen occur with a Supreme Court.

Yet another strength of the Articles was that any amendments to the Articles had to be agreed to by all the states, as opposed to our present Constitution, which can be altered by agreement between only three fourths of the states – a situation that is, basically, tyrannical toward the remaining one fourth of the states.

Although our Constitution supposedly prohibits an income tax by requiring that all taxes be apportioned according to population, as we’ve seen, this was subverted quite easily by the international banking cartel in 1913 when they established – by illegal means – the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution in order to pay the interest on our Federal Reserve currency, which goes directly to the bankers. This situation might have been avoided entirely by the Articles of Confederation, which provided for all taxes to be apportioned by Congress and collected by the states. In addition to this provision, the unanimity of the states required to amend the Articles, as stated above, would have prevented any possibility of an income tax being created at all and the fact that the states collected taxes would have prevented the bankers’ collection agency, known as the Internal Revenue Service, from ever existing.

Given all this, we can see, in hindsight, why the Rothschild/Freemason/Illuminati agents who steered us into a Federalized government in 1788 were so adamant about doing so. Had this been prevented and had we kept the Articles of Confederation, the history of the United States, as well as the world, would have been entirely different – and, most likely, entirely better, as well.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html

%d bloggers like this: