Congressman Griffith – Defend Liberty!!!

Posted by Kurt Feigel   // October 15, 2012   // Comments Off

Representative Griffith:

Personal liberty is the cornerstone of our society. Our ancestors created this country for that reason. We stand ready in support of all efforts to ensure our personal liberty and our property.

We support the idea of the Crooked Road, we believe that it clearly must be a local effort made by the persons who own the property in this area. However Sir, we must express our absolute disagreement with any part of the Ninth District being designated a “National Heritage Area.”

We desire no more involvement with this bankrupt, out of control, and many are convinced,tyrannical government of the united States. The “national government”seems always to be in expansion mode.

The government of this united States must not in any way place more unconstitutional zoning or use restrictions on we the people, or on our private property. We have placed the responsibility upon you Sir to ensure that this does not happen. 

The framers of our Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia June 12, 1776 said in Article 1, Section 6:

“….cannot be taxed or deprived of, or damaged in, their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives duly elected, or bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner assented for the public good.”

A few weeks later on July 4, 1776 our unanimous Declaration of Independence stated:

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, derived their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In the Articles of Confederation we can find no authority of a central government with declaratory power over the states. We do see in Article 2:

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and rights, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the united States, in Congress assembled.”

In Federalist Paper #39, James Madison – Father of the Constitution – said:

“Were the people in this transaction regarded as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the united states, would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority……and each state in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.”

Here James Madison is answering Patrick Henry’s accusation that a consolidated national government was being formed. Henry, Mason, Madison, Jefferson and many others were very opposed to any form of national government. Nationalism is not the direction of individual liberty.

Federalist Paper #45 – James Madison

“The powers delegated to the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce: with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States, will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

The Federal Constitution of the united States was enacted with the view in mind that the government must be dedicated to the singular purpose of defending and preserving the rights of the people. When our framers created our constitution, they did not set out to create the worlds greatest military power, or the worlds biggest economy, or to create jobs. Those are the result of following the principles in our constitution.Those things happened because our FOUNDING FATHERS set out to protect our individual LIBERTY from all forms of tyranny, including this government of the united States- all enemies foreign and domestic.

A close examination reveals in Article 1, Section 8:

“Congress shall have power to…..exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district, as may, be cession of particular states , and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings.”

Again in Article 4, Section 3:

“The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulation respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States…….”

We can find no authority in the Constitution for Congress, or the Executive Branch, to make a designation of anything national, in particular when the people have not given their consent.

We must know whether this National Heritage Area will change the jurisdiction in the area from Virginia and place it under the jurisdiction of the United States National Park Service (the NPS). With this entity – the NPS – we can find no constitutional basis for its existence. Never could we consent to give any more authority or jurisdiction within Virginia to Congress or the NPS, or the united States. Virginians have sacrificed far too much already of our private property to the “National Forest”, which is also very constitutionally questionable.

Cohens v. Virginia (1821) U.S. Supreme Court:

“It is clear that Congress, as legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union; the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia.

Cohens v. Virginia 6 wheat, 264, 5L., Ed 257 (1821)

It cannot be denied that the character of the jurisdiction which Congress has over the district, is widely different from that which it has over the states; for, over them, Congress has not exclusive jurisdiction. Its powers over the states are those only which are specifically given, and those which are necessary to carry them into effect….”

The Mayor,& C, of New Orleans v. United States U.S. Supreme Court (1836)

“The government of the United States, as was well observed in the argument, is one of limited powers. It can exercise authority over no subjects except those which have been delegated to it. Congress cannot, by legislation, enlarge the Federal jurisdiction, nor can it be enlarged under the treaty-making power.”

The Mayor, & C, of New Orders v. United States 35 U.S. 662:10, Pet. 662;9L., Ed. 573 (1836)

“Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.”

Again, our VA Constitution Article 1, Section 2

“That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.”

This is our law in Virginia. Have the people given consent to this project? How would consent of the people be obtained? Has the General Assembly agreed to the National Heritage Area? As reasonable persons, we have no desire for lawlessness, or to be deprived of our liberty or property, hence our conviction that this is another massive power grab by the “National Government”. We ask what percentage of land mass in the united States is already under the control of this government and removed from the control of the people? If not by direct control by this government, then how much is lost by regulations and government? Was that control of property consented to by the people? As government control of land increases, the amount of land available for our uses and development decreases. Exactly what percentage of land mass of this continent, under their control, will satisfy this government? Ask yourself Sir , would our Founding Fathers commit themselves to this.Would this have been their stance,or would they have placed private property and personal liberty above all else?

We submit that this government of the united States is not the constitutional government that our forefathers bequeathed to us.

Has America gone back on our historical stance of creator-granted individual liberty?

Our vigilance to preserve our liberty and our unalienable rights must be our only objectives. Only when government operates within its proper limitations can our liberties and our society exist. Those who serve in government must come to cherish the limitations of government with the passion of our forefathers.As our representative ,we state in the strongest possible terms, our directions to you are to follow the constitution, uphold your oath.

We hold our deepest respect and reverence for our history and heritage. We stand ready in support of all efforts to defend our liberties and hold sacred our inheritance as Virginians.

In Liberty,

Phillip Spence

New Castle, Virginia 24127

 

Kurt Feigel

About this contributor

Kurt Feigel posted 335 articles on this blog.

Not new to politics. Kurt Feigel has been blogging and vlogging for over 3 years. Kurt is the Managing Editor of Red State Virginia. Read More by visiting the "contributors" link above and click Kurt Feigel


Similar posts

Comments are closed.

Find Us On Facebook