The founding saboteur: Hamilton’s war on limited government

Welcome to another edition of Travel Out reports on America Out Loud.

Today is something different.

I usually deal with national security issues and we talk about guns and bombs and planes

and subversion and that kind of thing.

But I think listeners will largely agree that our huge out of control federal government

is a major national security issue in multiple ways.

You know, just bankrupting the country is going to make it so we can't afford the military.

The federal government is out of control being weaponized against us by faceless bureaucrats,

sometimes known as the deep state.

And I want to talk today to a friend I've known for many years who has dedicated his life

to studying the constitution and also methods to remedy the out of control federal government

to actually reign it and see it as both, you know, for multiple reasons.

Financial, you know, philosophical, national security, etc.

Is that a fair analysis?

Is that a fair description of UGA?

Yes, it's very fair.

I spent 35 years in the intelligence community.

So I pretty much served this nation one way or another and it dedicated that service

really towards the constitutional government that we should be having.

There's such a spectrum that I could probably talk about.

Such as, you know, bottom line, we need to have complete oversight over everything

the federal government is doing and the constitution demands that that be the states

because they're the parties to the combat.

So that even when intelligence comes up like the Snowden thing,

that should never have gotten out the way it had.

It should have gone to the states.

The state should have had oversight.

It should have reported the state legislature, the state should have stepped in

and said, what the heck are you doing?

We didn't give the authority to spy on us.

That type of crap.

So anyway, I've sorry for going down that little rattle, but yes,

you did a very good assessment.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Well, we're talking to G.R. Mobley and Nungia for some time.

As you said, he's worked in intelligence for many years.

He's well first, but he's also one of the greatest constitutional scholars I've ever met.

He's not much about the constitution he doesn't know and the history of the founders

and all of that.

And I think what he learned in that study is very, very relevant today,

both in terms of the little conspiracies that were about a bounding at that time,

but also obviously the fact that the constitution has been ignored

pretty much since we adopted it in many ways.

And that state has got way worse in the last few years.

Way, way worse.

It was always a slow and incremental process,

but especially since I think Obama has gone way out of control.

So G.R. what, why do you think that the design of the founding fathers

to have accountability over the federal government?

What fatal flaw was there that this didn't really happen as much as it should?

But what are the fatal flaws?

What are the mistakes we made in history to get to the state we are today?

Well, so give credit to what credits do.

The framers themselves were, they didn't have a complete understanding

of the design of the constitution.

Very few actually had a, what I consider a good profound understanding such as James Madison.

Most of them, I think they were really just along for a ride by the divine hand of providence

who was inspiring a lot of the stuff.

Now there were some compromises.

One of the biggest flaws within the constitutional convention was the fact that

they didn't demand the annihilation of slavery within this new formed government.

There was a political compromise between the three southern states, the Carolinas and Georgia.

Technically the northern states wanted to actually move forward, even including Virginia.

It would have been kind of difficult, but they wanted to move away from an embrace

and a governmental institutionalized slavery.

So that was one of the key issues.

But the two heated issues during the convention was state sovereignty and slavery.

And this is one in Article five of the Constitution.

There's this thing called the amendment protection clause.

And the amendment protection clauses are the last two clauses at the very back end

or the bottom of Article five, providing that no amendment be made that would,

and I'm just going to paraphrase, that would end the shutting down of the slave trade of 1808.

And the other one would take away the equal suffrage of the Senate without their

without their, they basically have to buy into it.

What was the technical world without their consent?

In other words, they can't lose their suffrage in the state or the US Senate without their consent.

And the 17th amendment didn't gain their consent.

The 17th amendment only changed the process.

So this whole fiasco that's going on in the Senate has been unconstitutional.

Ever since they started misinterpreting the 17th amendment,

and how everybody saw a boogie man in that.

But the outside of the convention, there was this little creature,

and that's what Madison and Jefferson called him,

this little creature called Alexander Hamilton,

who was deliberately working to undermine the Constitution itself.

And he did it with the judiciary.

And so the instrument that he used was the Federalist Papers.

And so that right there kind of gives you the overview of how,

because he had a plan.

And Madison and Jefferson were completely and embarrassingly duped by him

in basically conceiving on the Assumption Act,

where the Federal Government assumed the debt.

And then Madison, or not Madison,

Hamilton dropped the other shoe saying,

now we need to create a bank.

And so in the creation of that bank,

it basically set America up that had Jefferson not been president

of the United States.

We could have easily been tipped over.

Could have easily been tipped over.

Because John Adams was not used a man definitely out of his element

when it came to finances.

And with Hamilton right there in his ear,

whispering what to do and how to do things,

it could have easily gone the wrong way.

And people don't know what to do.

Do you see Alexander Hamilton as a very malign influence right from the stop?

Yeah, actually there's a Michael McKibben's,

is a gather of documents.

He found a document,

and I don't lend credence to it,

just due to the fact that it's an outlier.

But he found a document in Canada that actually identified Alexander Hamilton

as a spy working for the British Empire.

And so how explicit was this document?

Well, it was just a piece of paper that had a list of names

that were spies that they were reporting as spies working for the British Empire.

There was no real source document, no acknowledgement

that government knew this or anything like that.

So, you know, without having the context

and without having, you know, some, you know,

what I would call some credible substantiation,

it's just a piece of paper.

As I look at what Alexander Hamilton did and how he behaved,

oh no doubt, this guy was running in the background.

To me, I think that there's substantial support,

but I can't create the direct report.

The direct tie to him being that.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, yeah, of course, you know,

in the world of intelligence things are very murky

and you usually have to look at do patterns analysis.

What did this guy do that benefit of the enemy?

And if you have corroborating evidence as well,

that's great, but you really look at a man's actions over a lifetime.

Just on that list, that little list,

did you know any of the other names on that list?

Well, actually, so actually.

One of the things that I had kind of a problem with

was the fact that I think George Washington

was the name on the top of the list.

And so that's what really causes me to say,

I don't know how accurate this is,

because I don't see George Washington

being the guy that pandered.

As a matter of fact, he was in the executive position.

Here was a guy that actually had disdain

for the British Empire because of the fact that he was not.

And he should have been the first British general in America.

They refused to promote him to general.

And so, you know, during the Revolutionary War,

that was one of the drivers behind that.

Because he felt that he was unfairly treated.

He felt he deserved that position.

That's, I mean, this guy wasn't some turn up

to fell off the truck.

He had served and served.

And he actually had means and ways.

I mean, he was one of the richest men in America

at the time he died.

So, I mean, he was a man of prominence.

And he willingly stepped down from the presidency,

which actually just turned everybody's head in the world.

I mean, it was almost tantamount to the shot

heard around the world.

Somebody stepping down from power.

Yeah, that's the sum heard off.

Yeah.

Right.

I think it was just, by the way,

it was Benedict Arnold's,

so alleged mistreatment by the Revolutionary Government

and turned him into a British agent,

wasn't it?

Yes, correct.

The disaffection that he felt.

He wasn't given the credit he was due.

Oh, he is.

So he committed a suicide.

Yeah.

Correct.

Washington promoted Ethan Allen

and made him general instead of Benedict Arnold,

where I believe the argument was in favor of Benedict Arnold.

I just think Benedict Arnold was persona

and his, maybe his level of confidence

because I think Washington saw him as too much

of a conflict with him.

And where Ethan Allen was a little bit more,

I don't want to use the word sycophant.

It was more of a person that was, you know,

whatever you want me to do.

Where, yeah.

Where Benedict Arnold, he was a very well-seasoned military man

and he had confidence in what he did.

And that's why he had confidence.

He should have been general.

And it's the irony that, you know,

Washington turned on Britain.

And he, you know, did what Britain did to him.

And he turned on America.

So there you go.

Okay.

So back to the issue at hand.

Well, we're talking a little bit more about Alexander Hamilton.

So please explain his role.

And, you know, he was the one who introduced

the central bank, I believe, as you say.

Yes.

And what, what else?

What, what was the malign?

What were the malign?

And he clearly, you know,

it's known some of the founding fathers.

Jefferson obviously saw through him to at least some degree.

What was, what was, in your opinion,

what was Alexander Hamilton's malign role?

How did, how did he sabotage the American revolution?

Or tries to sabotage it?

Yeah.

So, one of the things that I think

put him on the footing to be able to do what he did

was in the Revolutionary War himself,

he became Washington's right-hand man.

And so he basically got everything done.

Washington looked at him like a son

based on how his respect,

how he served him in the war and so forth.

And it got to a point when, and this is kind of,

speaks to the man, Hamilton.

Hamilton being a lawyer.

He was very shrewd and he wanted to make sure

anything and everything he did was a success.

And so he didn't, you know,

belly ache and wine and cry and become the drama queen

to get his own command.

Because he started off, I think, a lieutenant captain

and he worked his ranks up,

working directly for Washington as his like his adjutant

or, you know, his assistant.

And so when it got time and the war was so mature

where it was almost safe,

any general or any command leader could easily go out

and beat the British because the momentum was in our favor.

And that's when Hamilton basically put his foot down.

I want my own command.

So he was in the right position at the right time

to be able to take command where he was there, you know,

towards, actually, at the end of the Revolutionary War,

which gave him some good credentials.

Bottom line, Hamilton had this relationship

that was almost like a father-son relationship with Washington.

So when we finally got to a point

and there's a lot of history of how we evolved

from the Articles of Confederation

into the Constitutional Convention

and into this hybrid Constitution Republic.

Hamilton was there working with Washington

and he was working through this evolutionary process.

I mean, from the Annapolis Convention,

I mean, he was present in most of these key positions

that forced the Constitution.

He was at the Constitutional Convention

as a delegate from New York.

So he somehow got himself involved in all of this.

And when finally, the government was formed in Washington

became the president.

He was instantly, you know, the first to be grabbed

because Washington had that respect for him

and he made him the treasure.

Because he knew he had some background regarding finance.

And so he'd made him the treasure

and what really caused the rift between him and Jefferson

was the fact that Hamilton,

because Jefferson was on his way back from France,

he hadn't accepted the position yet as the Secretary of State.

And so Hamilton as the first guy on the scene,

he created the rules and policies

or, you know, the lanes in the road

of who would have what authority

between the treasury and the Secretary of State

before Jefferson could even pipe in to say,

you know, I should be, you know,

he should do these things.

And so he was sitting in the boundaries,

sitting in the boundaries.

And Jefferson was not happy with what he was left with.

And he says, are you kidding me?

He felt that he should have been more involved

in the trades and those types of things

where the treasury was involved in that.

So anyway, that caused a big rift right there.

He says, you know, I see you basically carved away things

that actually should have been on my plate.

The first real dooping,

or the only real dooping in this facade

that Hamilton created was the Assumption Act.

And there's a really good account of the Assumption Act

and how Hamilton, Hamilton,

Duke, Madison and Jefferson

at a dinner party between the three of them

at Madison's house.

And so when Madison basically hosted this dinner

for the three of them, they sat down

and what ended up causing this whole dinner party

was Jefferson saw the creature sitting out in it.

And this was, I believe they were in New York at the time

because that's where the first session of Congress was,

the first two years.

And so he saw him sitting on a bench either outside

or in a building.

I don't have the real frame of where he was.

But Jefferson walked up to Hamilton and said,

what's wrong?

And he goes, it looks like we're going to be losing

states.

They're going to basically succeed from the union.

And he goes, well, why?

And he goes, because they're strapped with this debt.

Other states have paid off their debt

and we have to hold them accountable.

And there's just no way we can do this.

And then, you know, Jefferson says,

so he started telling Jefferson about this plan

and he kind of reeled him in on this and said,

look, if we can assume the debt,

then it would galvanize them.

They couldn't leave because now they owe us.

And he goes, he goes, OK, that makes sense.

So anyway, they go to Madison's and Jefferson

becomes the advocate to get Madison.

Because Madison was beating Hamilton

in the debates on the Assumption Act.

And he needed the Assumption Act

to be able to justify the bank.

And actually the bank created wasn't a typical

national bank.

It was a commercial bank.

This is where Hamilton had concocted these ideas

of selling bonds and selling products.

Which, you know, we've kind of just kind of embraced

this idea that, you know, our national bank

is in this commercial endeavor of trying to get people

to invest and interest and those types of things.

When technically, it should only be worried about funding itself,

paying off its debt, that type of thing.

That's it.

Yeah, yeah.

So anyway, when they, at this dinner,

it was put on the table that Alexander Hamilton could deliver

the seat of government to the Potomac

to split between Maryland and Virginia

as an advantage for Jefferson and Madison

if Madison could cool his jets

and not be so vigorous in debating against it

and allow the Assumption to occur.

Technically, this was a constitutional violation.

As a matter of fact, this was brought up in the convention

where Madison's notes they talked about this.

So they were going to actually include in the Constitution

the ability to assume the debts of the state.

They thought better that they shouldn't do that.

So they didn't include it.

And then all of a sudden during the debates

that was actually brought up, hey, you know,

the convention was going to give us this.

You know, it was implied that we were going to be able to do this.

And then Hamilton called him out, not Hamilton.

Madison called him out and said, hold on here.

You're right, it was brought up.

And the worthy member that's bringing this up

was one of those who actually voted against it

and spoke out against it.

And now you want to justify it?

Because that's why it didn't pass

is because we didn't want to be able to create a precedence

to be able to assume debt of the state's period.

So every state had debt from the Revolutionary War.

Not every state.

That's it actually ended up.

But there were some that hadn't

and to keep them in the union,

the federal government decided to pay off their debts

as a compromised measure to keep the union together.

Yeah, and so actually they had to, Hamilton had to do this

a sophistry that was very, very elaborate

because the uniformity clause in Article One Section Eight

it's then the preamble.

The very first part of Article One Section Eight

is the preamble.

There's three preambles in the Constitution.

A preamble is basically a initiatory clause

explaining what is to follow.

And so in the preamble of Article One Section Eight

it says that all taxes, duties, and so forth

must be uniform.

So when we look at the income tax,

it's not uniform because it has to be applied equally to everybody,

10% whatever.

So anyway, so back to this tax,

or I should say the assumption,

there had to be some uniformity.

And so what Hamilton did was everybody got a piece of the pie.

In other words, everybody benefited

to the same kind of degree the way he worked it out,

where the states that paid off their debt

were able to gain a better monetary position

because they deserved that.

And the states that didn't,

they would get a little monetary.

And this was the whole purpose of being able to create the bonds

and so forth.

At the end of the day,

the National Bank went belly up,

John Adams lost everything and had to move in with his son,

John Quincy Adams, for a long period of time

because he went absolutely bankrupt.

Everybody went bankrupt,

but this was after Adams presidency.

And so it was, it was a national embarrassment,

but like I said,

thank God Jefferson was in office at that point in time.

Because having John Adams losing everything,

I could see the president being compromised to say,

how can I, how can I mitigate this?

And here come to our rescue,

rescue would be Britain to say,

we'll give you pennies on the dollar,

so at least you don't have to move in with your son.

Right.

So, yeah, yes.

Jefferson was, it was really held things together.

So what, what,

and a little bit of time we got in this half,

what were, so, so Hamilton wanted a central bank,

which was really something that the British would want

because that would probably give them influence in the country.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And actually it would have worked us into a government

exchange system.

In other words, like we have the New York Stock Exchange,

it would have actually created a national exchange system,

instead of a private exchange system,

it was public, just like the London exchange system,

where now the government is in full control.

Bottom line, the government doesn't have those kind of powers

in the Constitution to do what they're doing today.

But it would have set us up to basically fall,

by falling into this financial crisis,

it would have set us up to basically be pulled in

where Britain was going to help us out.

You got to remember that Britain had still not resolved

giving us peace because they, just like we,

were not honoring that treaty,

which is why we was forced into part two

of the Revolutionary War of 1812.

Now, Hamilton actually had a plan,

and his plan didn't get executed until 1800,

under the appointment of midnight judges,

with Adams basically taking a list from Hamilton

and seeding all of these different judges,

one of which was a very close,

I'll call him, a protégé of Hamilton.

And it was John Marshall.

John Marshall and Hamilton met during the Revolutionary War,

he impressed everybody.

And he was so smooth and so slick

that he basically bamboozled everybody.

And Marshall was a man of avarice

that literally wanted to be able to aggrandize power.

Now, well, look, we bit it.

We bit it.

Yeah, I don't know how much of Reich was here.

It was a whole of Reich.

We can come back straight after this short break.

No problem.

I want to hear more of this.

You bet.

They were calling all patriots to Nashville, Tennessee,

July 2nd, 3rd and 4th,

for a powerful celebration of faith, freedom,

and the American spirit.

America out loud, the wellness company, and clear,

invite you to join us for the 250-10 Nashville event.

You'll experience best-in-class speakers,

extraordinary voices from across America,

bring in inspire messages you won't forget.

And on July 4th, get ready.

For the most spectacular by-work show in the country,

lighten up the Nashville sky,

250 years of liberty in America,

and 10 years of America out loud news.

Stand and strong for truth, justice, and the nation we all love.

You can save now with early bird pricing

at americaoutloud.news,

forward slash Nashville, July 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

America out loud news,

250-10 Nashville.

In just two minutes per day,

you could reclaim your health

and cut your grocery bill in half

with one simple convenient product.

Our doctor formulated green 85 juice formulas,

powerful dose of ultra-concentrated essential nutrients,

stops hunger in its tracks,

and supplies your cells

with what's missing in the grocery store food.

Go to chemicalfreebody.com,

forward slash out loud today,

get nature's super multivitamin,

green 85, empower your immune system,

cut down on your grocery bill,

and save 20% on your first order.

Feeling off lately,

bloated, brain fog, low energy?

It could be parasites.

These sound vaiders

so weaken your gut immune system and mental clarity.

That's why Dr. Peter McCullough

and the doctors at the Wellness Company

formulated an Ivermectin and Mebendazol clents,

a medical-grade solution designed to help

eliminate parasites and restore balance.

No gimmicks,

just real medicine trusted by top doctors.

Go to TWC.HealthFordsLashOutload

and use code out loud for 20% after your first order.

Take control of your health today.

The smartest food on the planet

doesn't come from a lab or in a package.

It grows in a class jar.

I'm Doug Evans,

author of the National Best Seller,

The Spout Book.

Sprouts deliver up to 100 times

the antioxidants of mature vegetables.

They grow in just three to five days

for under a dollar serving.

Get your spouting kit

at thespoutingcompany.com

slash out loud.

Use the code out loud for an exclusive offer.

Gross smarter.

Are you looking for a healthy snacks?

But you've had enough of all the sweet,

sugary energy bars?

Good news.

There's new bars to try.

That savory crunchy and packed with goodness.

Bear bars are based just on six simple natural ingredients.

A certified organic veggie nut and seed bar.

That's low temp dried.

Never baked or fried.

Bear bars are plant-based, gluten-free

and loaded with nutrients and protein.

Head over to bearbar.com slash out loud.

And get the exclusive discount just for America out loud listeners.

That's b-e-a-r-b-a-r.com

forward slash out loud.

Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years,

but our diet and the way we eat has.

Creating an environment in your mouth for bacteria

to wreck havoc on your teeth and gums.

For better oral health,

get spried dental defense

and oral care line designed to combat acid creating bacteria.

The toothpaste, mouthwash,

mouthwashments and gum all contain xylitol

and natural ingredients shown to dramatically improve oral health.

Spray can be found online and at all find natural retailers.

Welcome back to Travel Out reports.

America out loud will hear with GM Mobley talking about some of the intrigues

around the founding fathers around the establishment of the republic.

many of which had created negative impacts were still feeling today, so then I

want to talk about Republic Review, but we'll just do a little bit more on this.

So Hamilton is always regarded as more of a big government guy, am I right?

You know as Jefferson was the small government guy, Hamilton was a big

government guy, always trying to centralize things, always really trying to

subvert the revolution in a way. Is that a fair analysis?

Yeah, and actually the best way to help your listeners and help everybody

understand this. The Constitution, the way it was created, and actually during

the ratification debates and afterwards, when they really were trying to

explain what this Constitution was, they put it in context to a power of

attorney. There are two types of powers of attorney, so there's two types of

constitutions. There is a Constitution that grants general powers, giving the

general, giving the government itself full power and full discretion to do

however they want to govern. Our Constitution was the first ever to be a

special limited power of attorney that gave them very specific powers, and if

it's not listed, they can't meddle with it, they can't do it, which is why the

Constitution was justified and actually ratified unanimously without a bill

of rights. To be clear here, the bill of rights was unnecessary. It only became

necessary and nobody realized this until the Civil War, where the 14th Amendment

came in to basically keep bad acting states from killing people and oppressing

them. So it just sat there kind of on the shelf for the longest time until the

Civil War when the Bill of Rights really took a role in our government. That

being said, Hamilton was there, and actually during the Constitution's

convention, he basically said we need a king. We need a permanent executive, as

he was getting ready to leave the convention, he was kind of

explorating them, basically telling them that they were just, you know, wrong, we

need to model ourselves like Britain and so forth. And so his arrogance, you

know, was literally being established as a part of his reputation. But bottom

line in the post convention, he convinced Madison to come up to New York and

write a series of letters for, to be printed in a New York newspaper or

newspapers to basically help justify the Constitution to the state of New York.

Now the Constitution was very vigorously debated by six states and these six

states had enough population and had enough power and were in a position of

advantage over the Articles of Confederation because they were making their

own trades. They had their own, you know, their own currencies. These states saw

the Constitution as a true threat to their cabal and power, which is why they

were doing anything and everything they could to kill the Constitution. So they

concocted all sorts of cock and naming lies, stories and so forth, hyperbole

through these ratification debates. And bottom line, the delegates and all of

these states saw through that because every time the Federalist would just say,

hey, look, that power is not, there's no power in the Constitution over religion

or prayer. They can't regulate religion or prayer because the power is not given.

And so anyway, as we kind of move through this convention and the Federalist

papers, Madison ended up having to leave at the beginning of March. The last

Federalist paper was technically written in April by Hamilton. There was not one

Federalist paper that talked about or addressed the judiciary. Madison and

Jefferson were writing letters talking about, you know, what, you know, when

Madison was going to get elected because he had to go down to get elected to

become a delegate to go to the convention. So they had these letters talking

back and forth. And Hamilton in May was basically saying, as soon as you know

that the Constitution is going to be ratified, put an express pony with the

news, you know, inbound to New York, send them to me, I will pay him

handsomely so that I will know that the Constitution has been ratified

because they were waiting for the ninth state to do it. Virginia could have

been that ninth state. So Madison, you know, just kind of ignored what he said

because, you know, that's kind of ludicrous. Why would he want to have the news

that fast? So he never said anything in the letters back and forth, but Hamilton

prodded them again, saying, make sure you send me that express pony. And so

everybody's at least I scratched my head and I go, why was he doing that? Well,

as I did the research, the last eight Federalist papers were written after

New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify. In other words, the

Constitution was going into effect. In other words, it's done. Now these

these were done post facto. These were done after the Constitution had been

ratified by New Hampshire. So actually, when you look at the dates, the very

first one was probably written by Hamilton a little bit before, but he pinned

the date for June 14, which was the week that New Hampshire was ratifying. And

Hamilton got the drop on New Hampshire that they were actually going to

rubber stamp the Constitution the second time. There was some, you know,

positioning and so forth that they weren't going to do this. But as everything

was moving forward, it just seemed like, yeah, this is the, this is far better

solution than what we've got. So anyway, Hamilton then wrote these Federalist

papers and guess what the topic was. It was all about the judiciary. And in

the Federalist papers, Hamilton basically said, yes, of course, it's a common

practice that the court can interpret the law. Clearly, that's not within the

Constitution as a matter of what is in the Constitution is they're supposed to

judge cases based on law. In fact, no interpretation. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And

that, that is one of the main problems we've had since isn't it?

Absolutely. So Marshall came in. So let me just say this, when Marshall came

into the judiciary as the chief justice under his arm, he had the Federalist

papers. And at that point, he started a grandizing to say the only way we can

really understand this Constitution through the Federalist papers, they

completely ignored the ratification base because the ratification base went

through the Constitution line by line. They literally said, this is what this

line means. The Federalist papers did no such thing. It was more in theory and

all this other crap that mostly, you know, people get confused unless you kind

of understand the law and what they were doing. Bottom line, it was those last

eight articles that actually helped justify the court to not only just sneak

out, I mean, they paraded outside the boundaries of the Constitution when

Marshall became the chief justice. So this is very interesting. So basically,

Hamilton put in some late Federalist papers at set this stage for the

judiciary to interpret the law, which has plagued us ever since, which has

been a major, the probably the major way the Federal Government has expanded

beyond its boundaries. Is that accurate? That is absolutely correct. And this

is what stupifies me as a scholar. When you look at what is the base? What is

the fundamental documents that we should be using to interpret the

Constitution? And you look at contract law because the Constitution is a

compact. It falls under contract law. This notion that constitutional law is

something that exists would be the same thing as Verizon law. A contract

doesn't be get law. It actually falls under the category contract law. That's

a very specific definition. The Constitution being a compact with multiple

parties, it falls under that the auspices of contract law. They just aggrandize

the judges, jurors, and all these lawyers and everything else feel better

that they've contrived this thing called constitutional law. But

bottom line is if it's not in the Constitution, they can't do it. They can't make

that law. They can only make laws that are in pursuance to the Constitution.

So we look at what should have been used as the fundamental understanding of

the Constitution. It should have been the ratification base primary.

And then secondary, it should have been the debates in the Constitution

Convention. The Federalist Papers were editorials, editorial

commentaries printed in one state, New York, out of the 13. How did it become

this hallmark monolith? Oh, this is our godsend standard

because Marshall did that. And nobody challenged him.

Marshall was a prodigy of Hamilton. There you go.

It doesn't look good for Alexander Hamilton, doesn't it?

That he was always trying to central. He's always trying to subvert the

intention of the Constitution. So because of this,

we've had this continual process of precedent where

the court will interpret the law or the commerce act or

the commerce clause or whatever it is. That's all out of the federal government.

Right. So just to say this, I have a radio show and I read these documents

every day. And we have a curriculum January to December.

We cover right now. We're just wrapping up on the Constitution's Convention. We're

going into the ratification base. And I only hit the highlights.

The things that are really, really important to prove why the ratification

base and the Constitution Convention, not Madison's notes are the critical

documents, not the Federalist Papers. And I save this because

when you really look at the Federalist Papers, like I said, it was something that

was concocted by Madison, Jefferson, not Madison, Hamilton.

Madison had really no idea what Hamilton was really doing.

He thought that this guy was a good guy until they started dealing with him.

As soon as the Constitution was ratified and he started arguing

in the congressional debates as the Treasury, the Secretary of Treasury,

he instantly introduced the idea of implied powers,

which are a direct conflict with how the Constitution was justified.

Now to be clear, just so everyone understands, under contract law,

if there's a dispute on what something really means, it goes, ultimately, it goes

back to the parties of the compact to determine how that clause must be defined.

If there is not an adequate definition in the ratification base,

legally, if you go look up what is the legal basis of understanding a contract,

it'll tell you the ratification debates are the, you know,

supreme document because this is where they open it up.

This is where they create definitions to the clauses.

And based on the definitions determines whether it be ratified or not.

If it's accepted, it's accepted based on those things

that were described by the proponents.

If it's rejected, then that means that the opponents, those who were against it, prevailed.

So that means everything gets thrown out because it was rejected.

But because it was uniformly and unanimously ratified,

everything that the Anti-Federal said should be rejected.

You can't use that because the delegates didn't follow what they were saying.

They were following what the proponents were saying.

So that's why the ratification debates are the ultimate in defining.

To create clarity, the Constitution's convention can provide some clarity.

But if there's a question on what something, you know, we need to define this,

technically the Supreme Court, if they don't have something, they can't interpret.

So they instead of making something up, they need to go back to Congress and say,

Congress, you need to go to the parties and have the parties tell us how to interpret this line.

Because the line of interpretation or actually how to define this line or what this line is

defined by, because they don't have the power of interpretation like the British court system did.

And that's what Hamilton was using.

Oh, and Britain and our legal system, you know, in common law and these types of things,

we can do these things.

Did you know that the Constitution didn't create common law for the United States?

That was left to the state separately.

There's a jurisdiction over common law.

Anyway, so Hamilton brought on the British interpretation doctrine.

Yes, which is the stage for so much that happens.

Yes, he also included, this is another really important thing in the Federalist Papers,

he included the power of the court to uniform the law across the United States.

Now to be clear, throughout the ratification debates,

it was constantly being brought up in these the heated debates that the Federal Judiciary

and the Federal Government was not there to force or deregulate and tell the states how to govern

what kind of legal system they had to have.

And as a matter of fact, when they started talking about why was the Judiciary framed the way it was?

It was designed to conform to the different configurations of the state.

This was brought out in the ratification debates that almost all of the states implemented

a trial by jury of common law differently than the other states.

In other words, there was no set standard of common law throughout the states.

This is why they had to create this, I'll just say, this fluidity of the Federal system to be

able to adapt because they were there to serve the states not to dictate.

And so in the Federalist Papers, there's this part that says,

we have the power to establish and uniform the law across the states.

They don't have that power. That was assumed that language is only in the Federalist Papers,

not in the ratification debates because the ratification debates actually contradicted what that said.

So, it's so, and what really kills me is how can nobody ever brought this up?

Heck, we've gone so many centuries and it's now being disclosed that the Federalist Papers have

been the poisons pill. When I talk to these pseudo-constitutional lawyers or these people,

but I really know the Constitution because I've read the Federalist Papers and I go,

you don't know the Constitution at all. And when you go to law school, they will tell you that

the only document that you will use is the Federalist Papers. Stay away from the ratification

debate. Why would they do that? Why would they say, stay away from the ratification debates where

it was literally discussed line by line? Hmm, because there you go. I think that they actually knew

the fix was in and it was kind of just, you know, if you ever heard the story about the monkeys

in a cage with the banana and the water hose where they ultimately rotated every monkey. So,

they brought bananas in and every time a monkey would try to go for the bananas, they would hose

them all down with really cold water and to keep them from the bananas. So, ultimately, they changed

out every single monkey that was in that cage and the behavior was maintained where they would attack

in the new monkey that was brought in. They're, oh, there's some bananas. They would attack.

In other words, they had no idea why they were doing it, but they knew that they couldn't have

those and they were going to enforce that themselves so that they wouldn't get the cold water.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think that's where we are with the Federalist Papers and Understanding

because we blindly follow the judiciary. Today, Trevor, this is really important. We're

supposed to be a Republican form of government, which means that all of our problems,

when we have a problem with government, we don't go to court. It says right there in the first

amendment that we have a right. Our right cannot be a bridge to petition our government for the

redress of grievances, which means we don't pay a court fee. You write a petition, you go see your

legislators and go, this is wrong, you need to fix this and they're supposed to redress it.

This has been completely downplayed because the court has become the final arbiter of everything

because they've unconstitutionally assumed that position, which means that we're more of a

judiciary form of government than we are a Republican form of government.

Because if the common man could write a petition for free, that's a lot better than corporate

lawyers, you know, large entities. Most, you know, you're paying a lot of money today to go to

the Supreme Court, aren't you? Which shuts that a lot of people right from the start or just

states of the Supreme Court, etc. So that's a critical difference, isn't it?

It is. That right in the petition, right in the petition has been downplayed that

elevates the judiciary, the power of the judiciary, which seems to be one of our main problems.

Well, so our main problem is the literacy on the constitution. Nobody wants to take the time

to really understand it. And so when finally somebody comes along that really, really knows,

and then what happens is they, you know, the people that are standing on thin ice or the people

that are holding the position of the status quo, they attack that person that actually is

challenging everybody. And so, you know, you have to, you have to grow some big shoulders and

some sturdy feet in the legs. Bottom line is that when you start challenging, then it starts

getting people to open up. We're at a point today where there's so much challenging that there

has been brought to the table, such questionable artifacts and such questionable documentation

where we've got people that are convincing citizens of the United States to surrender their citizenship.

Bottom line, everything that they're telling them is coming from artifacts, misinterpreting artifacts,

and actually following judges, because like the sovereign citizen, nationalist, or what have you,

and you know, they're being duped, because they're actually following judge statements,

in this case, of this case, instead of actually reading the founding documents,

because I'll, yeah, the founding documents is a lot, you've got to read a lot.

Well, that's right, but if you're just following precedent and precedent, you're going to get

corruption, you're going to get into misinterpretations driven by political or commercial

agendas becoming the big, becoming the bad rock, which then somebody else comes along and amplifies

that, and it's easy to see over 200 years, you get away very much from the intent of the

founding fathers. Right. A little bit, a little bit, a little bit, a lot's happened to the Bible,

you know, people. Absolutely, absolutely. And so, you know, even Caesar felt that we need,

he needed to have us, and I forget the summit where he called everybody together, and he basically

laid down the doctrine of the Trinity and those types of things so that everybody would be on the

same page. What should have happened? It just amazes me, because everybody's protecting their own

little, just to be, just to be clear here, there's billions of dollars involved in this problem

our government overreach. It is so immense that there are institutions that are literally

fighting each other like over the convention, the convention states, I call them the conventionites

and the anti-conventionites. And if you really look, most people really believe it's a binary

issue when actually what should have happened was the state legislator should have had a convention

to actually say, okay, we all agree the government is doing things they don't have the power,

but is a Constitution convention amending the Constitution the way forward? Or nullification?

And I will tell you, nullification is at best a magical, you know, snake oil.

The laws do not just turn into liquid and run off the page when somebody says that's an illegitimate

law. You have to interpose to force that law to be nullified. If once an institution, once Congress

creates a law, they will not back down until you have forced them to. We see this with the 1798,

what were they, the alien and sedition acts when basically Jefferson and Madison demanded

interposition by the states to force them into nullifying those laws. You have to force them to

do that. Nullification is not some magic. Oh, you got us, okay, well, we'll erase it, sorry.

That doesn't happen that way. And this year gets people saying, well, you know, the Constitution is

being interpreted wrongly. There's bad laws. We just have to get them nullified. As though if you

present an argument in court, the federal government or the state government is just going to say,

oh, sorry, you will cancel that. And you're saying, no, that's the first tip, but you've actually

got to have a powerful force to see that it's done. Yes, correct. You have to develop political

force because when one person stands up and says you're wrong, you know, I've never in the history

of challenging power has that power ever other than by divine, you know, a profit or something

like that has been overturned. I mean, look at what Moses had to do to get the people of Israel

out of Egypt, you know, free my people, let my people go. And it was several times and it basically

had to prove the power of God to get the Pharaoh to let them go. And it just doesn't happen.

Nullification is not something that just happens. And so to be clear here, what most advocates

are saying is single state nullification. In other words, states should ignore the law.

Madison was very clear in his notes on nullification that that is an abomination.

Nobody can stay in the marriage and not honor the vows of the marriage.

You're joining the union to be a part of this union to follow the laws. A part of your

joining the union is to hold your child accountable. And if the states aren't willing to do their

job and you want to leave, then that's fine. But you can't ignore the law and stay in the union.

Madison said this so many times in different ways in his 1834 notes on nullification that you

want to, if you don't want to follow the law, you have a right to succeed from the union.

And then you don't have to follow the law. You can't have your bread buttered on all sides.

By staying in the union and ignoring the laws, you don't like. That creates chaos,

Madison, which is California and other states doing right now.

Well, so many states are starting to do that, like with marijuana and those types of things,

correct. Here's the interesting thing. If we actually got constitutional compliance,

where the federal government was holding the states accountable to the US constitution,

the Republican form of government, that they were actually holding the bottom line

on full compliance with the US constitution, California would try to succeed from the union

because they were complying. And they can't. You can only succeed from the union when the

constitution is being violated. In other words, if you have the principles and the

screwables to say, hey, this is wrong, we're not, and that's what the Southern states had the

right to do because the northern laws that they were creating were directly, you know,

it was economic warfare against them. And so they had the right to succeed. Lincoln was wrong.

Lincoln was a tyrant. Lincoln did so many, he was ignorant on the constitution and he,

but I'll just say this too, that Lincoln was prepared, I believe by God, by having a long

life of failures, that he was so hardened, that he wasn't going to see America torn apart.

Everything wrong, but at least he ended slavery. Now, the hindsight being 2020, I can tell you

what he should have done. And how to do this, just like with what Trump is doing today,

how we could end all of the strife around the world had, if we don't play the globalist game

anymore, the constitution would prevail, the UN would fall, and everybody would finally start,

you know, recognizing individual liberty and individual sovereignty, at least, this is my

premise, reasonable for people equally informed, seldom disagree. So once people start

equal, equally informed, the okay, okay. So when you get people equally informed, then all of a

sudden they start going, you know, you're right, that's, you know, the argument supports itself.

But when you have people that aren't equally informed and they're living in their own paradigms,

this is the, this is the patriotic party. I should say the patriotic people of America,

because they're not equally informed, they believe nullification, they believe in the convention,

they believe in, you know, separating themselves, creating a journal assembly and a shadow government.

All of these things are absolutely wrong and all these people are literally walking in the wrong

direction. We've been divided and this has all been done by controlled opposition. I'm sure you're

all aware of all that. Yeah, listen. Well, look, look, yeah, we have to close it out here,

but there's so much we didn't get to. We'll have to get you on again very soon. But I just

want to say it's been very educational for me and I hope to the audience as well. So we're on

again to a public review. There's many other things that you're doing that I think our audience

would find interesting. So please commit to coming back on again soon, a few or two. Happy to,

happy to plug my radio show. I'm on red state talk radio and I air six o'clock Eastern time Monday

through Friday and you can stream us. We air in a few little areas or venues, but bottom line,

you could just stream us or download. We read the documents for you. I'd never ask anybody to

take my word for it. I'm not going to editorialize. We're going to read what they said and you tell me

how was that not clear? Because okay. Anyways, well, please follow Gia and I will get you back soon.

Thanks for watching. Thank you so much. God bless.