Immigration, Invasion, Insurrection and Constitutionalism

By Tom Niewulis (Alter-ego Samuel Adams)

Issues!  Conspiracy!  Scandals! Deceptions!  Collusion’s!   Immigration!

Through all the blast of the media and the rhetoric of Congress to the standing on solid ground of a partially staffed Administration – not a single soul is talking about what the realities of fact and truth are in functional governance – under actual Constitutionalism.

In preparing for my radio program it became evident again that the emotionalism of all the media completely distorts any ability to get to the heart of the matter – How is our Constitutional Republic Intended to function? Frankly, those in government and even the super self-serving lawyers in Congress don’t understand nor do they want to. They have become so dependent on the donors and lobbyists that they have thrown the concepts of Constitutionalism deep in the sub-basement of the Capital and all the marble bureaucratic buildings in D.C.

How Dare I say this? Simple, I know how to read and reading the Federalist Papers alone gives clear intention (Intent) for how governance should function in the Republic. So before we get to the core issues as indicated by the title let us get one thing very clear: every pundit, talk show host/hostess, politician or bureaucrat that calls this nation a democracy should be heavily chastised, have their ears rung and be thrown out the door for manifesting their ignorance or subversive ideologies. Why? Because we are a Constitutional Republic (period)! If you cannot get that correct then you have no capacity to understand how this nation should function!

Now, Why did I use Immigration and Invasion in the title? Simple: Madison discusses both in Federalist #44 and he very well defines how all of what is going should be handled in Federalist #41 through #45. I will venture to say that over ninety-percent of those I mentioned in the last paragraph have not fully read these Federalist Papers. I think that may be something you as a Citizenry want to bring up during this election cycle as you vet your candidates – do they understand the functions of governance as defined, intended and even some lea-way according to just these four writings of Madison?

So let’s take a quick read on one of the qualifications on the powers of the Constitution:

  1. The immigration and naturalization issue has been problematic from the inception of the Articles of Confederation. In Federalist #42 Madison lays our the issue within the states doing their own thing with aliens and concludes this way:

“By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. The power of establishing uniform laws of bankruptcy is so intimately connected with the regulation of commerce, and will prevent so many frauds where the parties or their property may lie or be removed into different States, that the expediency of it seems not likely to be drawn into question. The power of prescribing by general laws, the manner in which the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States, is an evident and valuable improvement on the clause relating to this subject in the articles of Confederation. The meaning of the latter is extremely indeterminate, and can be of little importance under any interpretation which it will bear. The power here established may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States, where the effects liable to justice may be suddenly and secretly translated, in any stage of the process, within a foreign jurisdiction.”

  1. Just to hammer back on you pundits, talk show folks, politicians and bureaucrats; here is how Madison emphasizes that we are a Republic guaranteeing republican forms of government in the states in Federalist #43:

“To guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government; to protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence. “In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations. The more intimate the nature of such a union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be SUBSTANTIALLY maintained.” Now, Madison does lay in a caveat that even the likes of New York, Oregon, Washington and yes, California can be socialists/communists as long as they maintain a republican form. He writes: “But the authority extends no further than to a GUARANTY of a republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.”

Let it be said that there is statistical evidence that great numbers of folks are moving out of the Bay Area as unseen ever before. Hmmm….. Ya think that the isms are not what coalesces with Liberty?

  1. Madison continues in Federalist #43 to talk about ‘Invasion’ (my emphasis added like this):

“A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors (and corporations). The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article. Protection against domestic violence is added with equal propriety. It has been remarked, that even among the Swiss cantons, which, properly speaking, are not under one government, provision is made for this object; and the history of that league informs us that mutual aid is frequently claimed and afforded; and as well by the most democratic, as the other cantons. A recent and well-known event among ourselves has warned us to be prepared for emergencies of a like nature. At first view, it might seem not to square with the republican theory, to suppose, either that a majority have not the right, or that a minority will have the force, to subvert a government; and consequently, that the federal interposition can never be required, but when it would be improper. But theoretic reasoning, in this as in most other cases, must be qualified by the lessons of practice. Why may not illicit combinations, for purposes of violence, be formed as well by a majority of a State, especially a small State as by a majority of a county, or a district of the same State; and if the authority of the State ought, in the latter case, to protect the local magistracy, ought not the federal authority, in the former, to support the State authority? Besides, there are certain parts of the State constitutions which are so interwoven with the federal Constitution, that a violent blow cannot be given to the one without communicating the wound to the other.”

You are going to have to think this through or listen to my program to hear me explain this. It is way to long to detail in this blog post since I do want to give you more factual reality to absorb. But please, do reread the first couple of sentences over and over until they sink in.

  1. a. In this same Federalist #43, Madison talks about ‘Insurrection’ to the point that I believe we are seeing this very time with a his use of ‘minority and alien’. He writes this relative to issues in the states but now we have seen what he is concerned about that the problem has moved to the national level where not mediator but the Rule of Law by the Constitution should prevail:

“May it not happen, in fine, that the minority of CITIZENS may become a majority of PERSONS, by the accession of alien residents, of a casual concourse of adventurers, or of those whom the constitution of the State has not admitted to the rights of suffrage? I take no notice of an unhappy species of population abounding in some of the States, who, during the calm of regular government, are sunk below the level of men; but who, in the tempestuous scenes of civil violence, may emerge into the human character, and give a superiority of strength to any party with which they may associate themselves. In cases where it may be doubtful on which side justice lies, what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms, and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States, not heated by the local flame? To the impartiality of judges, they would unite the affection of friends. Happy would it be if such a remedy for its infirmities could be enjoyed by all free governments; if a project equally effectual could be established for the universal peace of mankind! Should it be asked, what is to be the redress for an insurrection pervading all the States, and comprising a superiority of the entire force, though not a constitutional right? the answer must be, that such a case, as it would be without the compass of human remedies, so it is fortunately not within the compass of human probability; and that it is a sufficient recommendation of the federal Constitution, that it diminishes the risk of a calamity for which no possible constitution can provide a cure. Among the advantages of a confederate republic enumerated by Montesquieu, an important one is, “that should a popular insurrection happen in one of the States, the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound.”

As the multitude of guests on the so-called news programing say – “LOOK!” I’m here to clearly point out that the hype and deep issues of the day are not ‘conservative’ vs. ‘liberal’. The issues stem from ideological moral deficiencies of ‘First Principles’! This begins with the first principle of Religion where we have seen every perversion of our Foundational Biblical Reformation Truths turned into what happens on the streets of San Francisco. To this point, a denomination named after a 16th Century priest who nailed his 95 theses on the doors of a church in Germany has totally gone the way contrary of those Foundational Truths.

The reality of our modern issues which are a diffusion of ideologies contrary to Foundational First Principles of Constitutionalism is not only spoken of by Madison but he also emphasizes that Constitutionalism and the rule of law established by it, are here to maintain true Liberty for all. The root point of this post is that those who flap their lips the most in the media, news print, social media and all that is incorporated in the actions of governance – have no understanding of Madison’s comments because they haven’t read them nor do they want to accept them. It is all about (as they say now) ‘the narrative’ that justifies their ideologies, which has nothing to do with True Liberty.

Ok, my editor told me that you might not understand all that’s here because we ended up having an in-depth conversation of what is happening today in the states as compared to what Madison was talking about and that which I presented here. With that, you have to listen to the radio program on Saturday 2-17-18 or go to the archives afterwards to hear/watch the explanation of this posting in more detail.

Comments Off on Immigration, Invasion, Insurrection and Constitutionalism

Filed under Blog

Comments are closed.