Part 2

states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."

It should be concluded that the Supreme Court derives no supremacy from the above article of the Constitution; in fact, Article III limits and defines the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It should also be evident that, based upon sound construction, the term "supreme" in reference to the court is in relationship to the "inferior courts" and that no actual supremacy rests within the Supreme Court itself except in that relationship. There is no reference within the Constitution as to the supremacy of the Supreme Court over State Courts or State jurisdiction.

There was no intention that the word "supreme" as being indicative of a power that extended beyond the prescribed limitations placed upon the court by the Constitution, if that were the case then it would be possible for the court to extend its power to any degree it deemed proper and necessary; that would be a dangerous proposition and would allow for the concentration of power within the federal government without regard to the consequences of that concentration. Had the Constitution enumerated that the court had supreme jurisdiction then it would have not be necessary to enumerate or define certain limitations on the jurisdiction of the court as found within Article III. Indeed, had that been the case then there would be no limitation at all and the supremacy of the Court would instantly abolish the coordinate Right of Constitutional Construction. There is therefore, no power innate within any branch of government to define its own limitations or lack thereof, those are defined within the Constitutional Compact as agreed upon by the States as parties to that Compact. The federal government is not a party to the Compact, but is the resulting agency of that Compact, deputized and authorized to operate within a defined and limited capacity.

Since it is obvious that the Constitution does not invest inferior courts with jurisdiction over State courts, then it must be equally clear that the Supreme Court can hold no such jurisdiction either. Likewise, the Constitution did not declare the Legislative Branch was superior over the State Legislatures, both were considered independent of each other, thus the same construction must be applied to the Judicial Branch of the federal government regarding the State Judicial Systems. If the State Judicial were subordinate to the federal Judicial, then it would have been enumerated and the interactions, as well as the limitations would have been clearly defined, but that is not the case. In fact, if it were the intention of the Framers of the Constitution to place actual supremacy within the federal Court system then it would not have been necessary to define the various operations, limitations and jurisdictions of the Supreme Court.

Federal Judicial power must therefore, be limited in relationship to the State Judicial in the same fashion as the Legislative Branch is limited in regards to State Legislatures, in both instances they are independent of each other and operate within differing spheres of action and different spheres of delegated power. Since it is obvious that Congress cannot repeal a State Law, it would follow that the federal courts cannot Constitutionally abrogate or enjoin judgments of State courts. Indeed, if the three branches of our federal government are separate, but co-equal then every principle concerning the manner and means by which authority is delegated to the federal government must be equally applied.

These principles derive their force from The Declaration of Independence as demonstrated in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where the Court held:

"This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted."

Again, in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), where the Court stated:

"There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states. Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory"

"The soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour."

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 139 (1837), the Court held:

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive,"

Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212-223 (1845) the Court clearly delineates the strength of the State's independence:

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed,"

Because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted,Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law".

Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215:

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

Additionally, in consideration of proper understanding and construction the Court appeared to be in concurrence with The Federalist Papers:

"The jurisdiction of the general government, is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the Republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any."

If we take such expounders of our Constitutional construction then it should follow that if the jurisdiction of the general [federal] government is limited in both its scope and reach into the matters of the Free and Independent States, then the Supreme Court, being simply a branch of that general government is also restrained by the Constitution to follow the same limitations of power as the federal government as a whole. Since the federal government is limited to certain enumerated objects, then it would behoove us to understand what those enumerated objects consist of and just how they are prescribed for administration.

Also found within The Federalist 82.3, federal power is clearly defined: "the principle that the States will retain ALL PRE-EXISTING AUTHORITIES not exclusively delegated to the federal government."

Within the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, it appears that Jefferson is in concurrence:

"Resolved, that the Several States COMPOSING the United States of America ARE NOT UNITED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF UNLIMITED SUBMISSION TO THEIR GENERAL GOVERNMENT, but that by COMPACT under the style and title of the Constitution FOR the United States and of amendments thereto, THEY CONSTITUTED a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, RESERVING TO EACH STATE TO ITSELF THE RESIDUARY MASS OF RIGHT TO THEIR OWN SELF-GOVERNMENT; AND THAT WHENSOEVER THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT ASSUMES UNDELEGATED POWERS, ITS ACTS ARE UNAUTHORITATIVE, VOID AND OF NO FORCE: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party; that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but, that as in " all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the measure of redress."

There can be no doubt that while there is a complex relationship of co-organization between the Several States and the federal government, that they are indeed independent of each other and both the Several States and the federal government have the mutual right of construing the Constitution. It is both recognized and also asserted, as co-dependencies of government, the governments of the Several States and the federal government, along with the principle of those distinct governments, in principle, operate within distinct jurisdictions, and for a very good reason, so as not to allow the concentration of power to be formed by any government, whether it be those of the Several States or, in particular, the federal government. Thus, logical construction should follow that if the entirety of the federal government possesses no supremacy over, nor can require subordination of the entirety of the State governments, then neither can any part of the federal government have supremacy over any corresponding part of the State governments or, for that matter, the Several States themselves or their citizens except in a very limited delegated manner prescribed by the Constitution.

That being said, it would then appear that there is no obligation of subordination of the legislatures of the Several States to the federal legislature; likewise, there is no supremacy of the federal judiciary over the judiciary powers of the Several States, except as explicitly expressed within the delegated and enumerated powers found within the Constitution. Since there has been, within the Constitutional Compact, a reservation of the residual mass of rights to the States it then follows that all the powers, limited in scope and operation, delegated to the legislature and judiciary of the federal government were deliberately prohibitive. Claims to the contrary defy the co-extensive restrictions on the enlargement of power or the assumption of power that would, by any Constitutional definition, be a trespass against the functional spheres of operation of the States.

There is, without doubt, no assertion of power more inconsistent with the principles of republican government than a claim by any portion of the federal government over the laws and Constitutions of the Several States. The annulment, by the federal government or any portion of the federal government, of the laws of the Several States is an abridgement of the oath that every elected federal official took to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America.

There is, without doubt, an obligation on the part of the governments of the States, as it is on the federal government, to comply with the Constitutional Compact; after all, it is a Compact between the Several States, not with the federal government and the Several States. The primary obligatory focus however, is on the federal government as the resulting agency of the Compact between the Several States, thus the delegation of powers to the federal government from the position the States take as creator of the Compact.

Thus, it is sufficient to say that the Supreme Court can most definitely declare un-Constitutional laws as void and ineffectual however, that does not mean that the Supreme Court may, based upon the authority delegated to it, be the sole authority of Constitutional construction. The final check on the federal government is not the Supreme Court, but the Several States themselves since the Supreme Court's authority only extends to the limits of the powers delegated to it by the States and no more. It cannot legislate from the federal Bench, it can only determine the Constitutional value of a particular law as passed by Congress or, in the case of Appellate jurisdiction, the opinions of the inferior federal courts. The Supreme Court, as well as the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government are not constituent parts of the governments of the Several States, as such, there is no legitimate cause for any portion of the federal government to intrude into the measures taken within the Several States unless those State governments seek to abrogate their Constitutional obligations under the Compact. Likewise, the governments of the Several States cannot legitimately intrude into federal measures unless those measures are determined, by the Several States, to be a violation or usurpation of the Constitutional Compact which created, through ratification, the federal government.

During the ratification process, it is evident that the People of the Several States did not confide the federal government with every possible power, nor did they imbue the federal government the power to determine its own limitations. In the case of the federal Judiciary, the People of the Several States confided the Courts with the power to declare a federal law void and un-Constitutional, but the People, in their own Sovereign character through the agency of their Free and Independent States, provided that the spheres of action between the federal and State Judiciaries, were to be separate and distinct. So much so, that the relationship between the Judiciary of the States and that of the federal government could be compared with that of the court systems of two different States, separate jurisdictions and powers with no power to intrude in each other's spheres of action or declare a law of a different State void. `

How can there be a reconciliation between the principles found within the Constitutional Compact and the idea that, as the Supreme Court appears to contend, that is has the ultimate and final word on law? If, as the Supreme Court contends, it has the Constitutional authority to effect, with a certain finality, the laws of the Several States, even to abrogate those laws then would that not be a complete surrender of all control over the governments of the Several States, and thus, over the People of the Several States?

If the Supreme Court or the federal courts can abrogate any State law and control the States based upon any construction that it so pleases, then can there be any real retention of the mass of rights which, according to the Constitution, were reserved to the States themselves? Would therefore, the States have any security at all in retaining any of their rights if the federal Judiciary claims such supremacy? The guarantee of the right of republican governments to the States, a guarantee stemming from the Constitutional Compact not the federal government, could possibly be safe under the supremacy of such a federal court system?

The doctrine of federal judicial supremacy is contrary to the principles of internal self-government by the People of the Several States and essentially transfers all authority over every aspect of our political, social and economic life to the Supreme Court. Certainly that could not have been the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, nor of the Conventions of the Several States as they ratified the Constitution. The Framers were careful enough to divide powers between the Several States and the federal government, indeed they went as far as dividing the federal government in order to protect against centralized supremacy; it makes no sense therefore, that after such care in construction they would place such an unlimited power within the Supreme Court. Indeed, they would not have placed a power within such a court that would essentially allow it to be the judge of its own limitations and the powers that were delegated to it as enumerated.

The very same principle that allows for the Judicial Branch to restrain the Legislature from extending its power beyond the prescribed enumerated Constitutional powers is also found within the Several States and is an added measure of protection against the usurpation and abuse of power. The States are no less powerful, no less respectable than the Supreme Court itself or any other Branch within our system of governments. Despite the current present condition of the State governments, subjugated to the federal government and pressed beyond measure to a servile state under the now centralized federal government, the States nevertheless, has the same power upon which the Supreme Court depends and they too are equally entrusted to discharge their Duty as Parties to the Constitutional Compact to be loyal to those principles upon which that Compact was founded.

We must, if we are to survive and restore the Republic, remember that the strength of the government lies within the People themselves. While it appears that this Grand Republic of Republics have been reduced to a shell of its former self, there is enormous power residing within the People themselves and there is nothing this deformed centralized government fears more than the power that is reserved to the People. The People are the origin of all power that is delegated to the governments; they are the protectors and the source of all deputized authority. The Framers of Our Constitution never intended any given sphere of government to acquire enough power to control all others, the final determining factor is the People themselves acting through their deputized agents called the governments of the Several States, which can, if necessary, act forcibly against the federal government through interposition, and as a final threat of authority, the abolition of the Compact of Union.

It is evident that the States, prior to the Compact of Union found within both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, were Free and Independent States; these attributes were not relinquished by the Compact of Union, in fact it demonstrates the full character of the States as Free and Independent entities in the ability to form such a Compact of Union.

All Un-Constitutional laws, as well as Un-Constitutional Judgments of the Supreme Court itself are null and void. The Supreme Court is no less bound by its Oath to the Constitution than is the Legislature, the Executive or the States themselves. The States, like the other Branches of government, not only have a right, but also a duty to resist, by absolutely every means within their power, all Un-Constitutional laws or judgments. The Supreme Court has never had the exclusive right to determine its own jurisdiction, for to have such a right would essentially empower it with a jurisdiction without limits and without the ability to be redressed for its abuses.

Since it is the People who are Sovereign, the government, including our State governments cannot be sovereign; the State governments are equally limited in their scope of power as is the federal government. Our system of governments was intentionally subjected to limitations and restrictions, within none of them being exclusively empowered with the ability to enforce those limitations and restrictions, thus a system of checks and balances.

Derived power can never be greater than the power from which it is derived. Since all power is derived from the People themselves, no State or majority of States can exercise supremacy over any other State; equally as potent is the fact supremacy was not conferred to Congress, to the Executive or the Supreme Court because derived power can never be greater than the power from which it is derived. It is very apparent since the federal legislature cannot possess absolute unlimited power or supremacy, then the Executive nor the Supreme Court cannot posses it either. The principle of separate, but equal Branches of government would indeed be a contraction if one of those Branches had any supremacy over the others, likewise, the concept of a Republic of Republics, Free and Independent would equally be contradictory if the federal government had exclusive supremacy over the States.

In consideration of the fact that Un-Constitutional laws and judgments are null and void, such judgments and laws cannot be enforced since they are not indeed law, but mere fabrications of legislative deviancy. Herein is the power of the States, as deputized agents of the People, demonstrated in the nullification of such judgments and laws. The States, as deputized agents of the People, share the mutual Right of Constitutional construction as does the various Branches of the federal government, this is evident by the oath found within the Constitution that requires: "the Senators and Representatives in Congress, and the members of the Several State Legislatures, and all Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and the Several States, shall be bound, by oath of affirmation, to support the Constitution."

This common duty to uphold the Constitution also implies an equal responsibility as to the determination of the actual nature of laws passed by the federal Legislature, executed by the federal Executive and if necessary, subsequently adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The truth is that our government is far more than just a single entity with single authority; it is multilayered with very defined spheres of limited power and with good reason, to protect the Liberty of the People and to provide the least amount of government intrusion into their lives. It must be understood that the constructive supremacy of one single political power over all others within our government invalidates the entire system upon which this country was founded.

Equally as important is the understanding of the type of construction that was used to impart these divisions of power within our system of governments. There was an intentional degree of internal conflict imbedded into our Constitutional Republic. Since it appears that the federal government possesses the greater sphere of influence in terms of governing, due to the nature of the federal government, there is, as we have seen over the decades, a tendency for the Supreme Court to base its decisions on the justification of the federal government's positions. Such judicial actions can, of course, create distortions within our republican form of government. Over the years, expressed supremacy has been erroneously merged with implied supremacy within the federal government, as such; the government has assumed authority far beyond that which was enumerated. It should therefore, be obvious that by merging that which is actually expressed and enumerated with that which is merely implied there is a great possibility, as is the case presently with our federal government that instead of the government functioning within the defined limitations and restrictions found within the Constitution, the powers it has assumed have been amplified from implied powers to what now amounts to expressed powers without limitations. Due to these distortions of Constitutional construction, the Court now appears to insist that Congress, the Executive and the Court itself extends to supremacy over the powers reserved to the States themselves. The Constitution was carefully constructed to preserve the powers reserved to the States, as well as those delegated from the Several States to the federal government and no where within the Constitution does it give exclusive right to one section of our system of governments over another.

The federal government cannot be the judge of its own limitations for it will always determine that such limitations are no limitations at all. A judge cannot judge his own case any more than our government can determine the extent of its own limitations, there must be external checks and balances which forcefully demand those limitations be obeyed.

Likewise, if the Supreme Court, for instance, is limited by its own will then its conception of power will always gravitate toward that power being unlimited. No power can ever be checked by itself for it will always assume the greatest degree of latitude in the exercise of that power. In such cases there is left little means of resistance except extreme resistance.

Does not a union of States denote the supremacy and equality of the parties forming the union and not the union itself? The act of union did not imply the reduction of the supremacy of the States nor the Sovereignty of the People, it was a mere contractual act between the States to provide a greater degree of flexibility and protection to the People of the Several States than they would have been provided without union.

John Locke correctly stated, "that no man has a right to that, which another has the right to take from him." This is exactly the state of affairs that the People of this country are now subjected to by the federal government; the Court is more likely to judge the limitations of our Rights instead of the limitations of the government's exercise of power over our Rights.

When Congress passes Constitutional laws, then the States have the obligation to abide by those laws, but when Congress passes laws that are blatantly Un-Constitutional then it is the duty of the State government to resist with the utmost force possible and deny the exercise of those Un-Constitutional laws on the Citizens of the Several States. The supremacy of the Constitution not only embraces the powers delegated to the federal government, but it also embraces those powers reserved to the Several States as they perform a valuable function within our system of governments. There is, inherent in the reservation of powers and rights to the States a declaration that the States are in the position of supremacy over those rights and powers reserved to them rather than the federal government, which has no jurisdiction in those areas; in a similar fashion the States have no supremacy over those rights and powers they delegated to the federal government, yet the States do provide a check upon an extension of those powers beyond the measure prescribed within the Constitution.

There must be a concerted effort on the part of the Citizens of the Several States to not only disavow, but to resist and nullify all laws that are contrary to the lawful adherence and exercise of the Constitution. The States have this power for direct and indirect opposition to laws passed by Congress that do not meet with the measure laid out by the Constitution. For if Congress can continue to take from the States and their Citizens through various legal fabrications and the use of coercion to enforce those fabrications then it can take everything away.

It is apparent that the federal government has, with the assistance of Judicial novelties, effectively abrogated the right of the States to a republican form of government; for now the federal government intrudes into every internal matter within the States and their Citizens, employing various legal measures and maneuvers to accomplish its treason against the Constitution. The abutment of the States reserved powers has been effectively eroded by these measures to the point that the federal government, by implication, can remove any person from the jurisdiction of the States or confiscate any property. We have become a plundered People without redress to the plunderers. It is time for this People, through their Rightful State governments, deputized for their protection against usurpation, to stand in forceful resistance against the wiles of a federal government that has illegally imposed itself as sovereign over this People and their State Republics.